[권리범위확인][집14(3)행,027]
Cases in which similarity of a trademark is not recognized;
A. Whether a trademark is similar should be determined by whether two trademarks used for the same kind of product are confused or are likely to be confused in trade by objectively, in whole, and differently observing the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark objectively, as a whole.
나. 상표 "ＴＥＲＲＡＣＩＮ"과 상표 "ＴＥＴＲＡＣＩＮ"은 유사하다.
Article 2 of the Trademark Act, Article 15 of the Trademark Act, Article 25 of the Trademark Act, Article 26 of the Trademark Act
Jaco-spha and commercial companies
East Asian Drugs
Patent Country
The case shall be remanded to the appellate court of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.
We decide on the grounds of appeal by appellant agent.
According to the original decision, the court below is composed of "TTRAIN" after comparing the registered trademark "(a) with "ETRAIN". Since the latter is composed of "ONG-A" and "Mea," it can be recognized that the two parts of "TTRACIN", which are part of the main part of the domestic (a) identification card, are separated from "TTRACIN" and it can be recognized that the other part of "TTRACIN" is "R" as "R," and it can be recognized that there is a difference between "the other part of "TTRACIN" and "the other part of "the other part of the mark," which is "the other part of "TTRACIN" and "the other part of the mark," which is not "the other part of "the new subject," and it can be recognized that the latter part of "the new subject," "the new subject, etc., which is obviously similar to the other part of "the new subject," and it can be recognized that the latter part of the new subject," or the new subject, etc.
However, the similarity of trademarks under the Trademark Act shall be determined by whether there is a possibility of confusion or misunderstanding in trade by objectively, overall, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of product. It is similar to the trademark that can be confused in the overall observation because there is a difference between different parts among the trademarks. According to the records, the claimant's assertion is similar to the trademark that is registered by the claimant because (a) the part of the Roman character indication among the marks is similar to that of the claimant. Thus, when comparing the trademark (a) with the trademark that is recognized as an essential part of the trademark, the two trademarks are different from the third word "T" in appearance, but it is harsh when the whole observation is made, and even if the name "T" is similar to "T", it is difficult to see that there is a difference between the two different parts, as a whole, in terms of the appearance, name, and concept, "T" as "t", and it is difficult to see that there is a difference between the two.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying mutatis mutandis Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu