[거절사정(상)][공1998.2.1.(51),414]
[1] The case holding that trademark "BNA REPUBL" and "BNA BOT" are similar
[2] The case holding that the designated goods are similar goods of different kind
[3] Whether the trademark "BaNA REPUBL" can be separately observed in terms of concept (affirmative)
[4] In a case where a trademark similar to the applied trademark is registered differently from the designated goods, whether the applied trademark should be permitted (negative)
[5] Whether a trademark which is registered in a foreign country shall be registered in our country (negative)
[1] The case holding that the trademark "BNA REPBLIC" and the cited trademark "BNABL" are all combined trademarks consisting of English and English persons, each of which is separated from each other, and since it is difficult to see that the combination does not create a new concept due to the combination thereof, and it does not create a new concept, and that it is a combination of two separate concepts to the extent that it is natural and non-natural, it can be separately observed in each part of ordinary consumers, and in addition, it is possible to use the trademark as simple and speedy, and in particular, both trademarks of the ordinary trade world emphasizing the above parts can be called as "B", and in such a case, both trademarks are similar if both trademarks are observed in the whole, objective, and shock manner as they are identical with their names.
[2] The case holding that a trademark applied for trademark is similar goods when determining in light of its quality, shape, use, and transactional norms, such as chemical equipment accumulated as designated goods of the applied trademark, gymnas, gymnasium, cremation, cremation, rhymnas, handba, etc., which are the designated goods of the cited trademark
[3] Although the applicant trademark "BNA REPBLIC" has the meaning of "a country with a high dependence on trade or foreign capital such as overday and with a high degree of dependence on trade or foreign capital, and a small and medium-sized area, such as South and North Korea," it cannot be accepted in the assertion that the applicant trademark cannot be separately observed in terms of its concept since ordinary consumers in our country did not know such meaning.
[4] Whether a trademark is eligible for registration should be determined individually according to each trademark in relation to the designated goods. Thus, even if a trademark identical or similar to a trademark applied for registration is registered differently from the designated goods, the registration of the trademark applied for registration does not necessarily have to be permitted.
[5] Whether registration of an applied trademark should be independently determined under the Korean Trademark Act, but it is not a legal system or language habitor of another foreign country's registration example.
[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [3] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [4] Articles 6 and 7 of the Trademark Act / [5] Articles 6 and 7 of the Trademark Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1824 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2124), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1456 delivered on March 8, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1260), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1927 delivered on June 27, 1996 (Gong1997Ha, 2369) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1470 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2199) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu897 delivered on November 22, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 219) 97Hu9799 delivered on June 14, 196
B. Babbbroid (Patent Attorney Kim Jong-le, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na2829 dated March 28, 1997
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below and the record, since the trademark of this case filed on June 23, 1994 "BNA REPBL" and the cited trademark applied on March 23, 1994 (trademark registration number omitted) are all composed of English and English, each part of the trademark is separated from English and its combination does not create a new concept, and it is difficult to view that there is a combination of these parts to the extent that it is not natural if it is separated and observed, each part of the designated goods can be separated from ordinary consumers, and the trademark of this case is referred to as "BNA BOT" and the cited trademark applied on March 23, 1994, which is earlier, can be seen as identical or similar to the trademark of this case, and the trademark of this case, which is used as a trademark of this case by emphasizing the previous part, can be seen as identical or similar to the trademark of this case, and can be seen as identical or similar to the trademark of this case.
In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete hearing as to the similarity of trademarks.
Although "BNA REPLIC", the applicant trademark of this case, has the meaning of "a small and medium-sized country, such as over-day trade or foreign capital dependence, and politically unstable," it cannot be accepted in the grounds of appeal that the trademark of this case cannot be separately observed on the basis of its concept since ordinary consumers in our country did not know such meaning. Meanwhile, the existence of the eligibility for registration of the trademark of this case should be determined on the basis of each trademark in relation to the designated goods. Thus, even if the trademark of this case identical or similar to the applied trademark of this case is registered on the other designated goods, the registration of this case does not necessarily have to be permitted in this case, and further, the registration of the applied trademark of this case should not be independently determined on the designated goods under the Korean Trademark Act, and it cannot be accepted in all other cases (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1866, Jun. 24, 1997).
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)