[거절사정][공1991.6.15,(898),1507]
Whether the application trademark “Ssaw” and the cited trademark “HISDULIN” are similar (negative)
HYSOP
The similarity of a trademark is, in principle, to observe two trademarks used for the same kind of product as a whole and to compare, examine, and determine its appearance, name, and concept. However, only in exceptional cases where the combination of trademarks cannot be deemed natural and a series of indivisible, it is permitted to separate, extract, and compare and compare its constituent parts. The applied trademark " and the cited trademark" have different external appearance as a lighting trademark, and there is no special concept, and even in title, there is no possibility that the "stop" is separate and perceived or abbreviated", and as a whole, the "Stop" and "Stop" in Section 5 are different from each other, so the trademark applied for trademark and the cited trademark are deemed to be a trademark that has separate distinctiveness.
Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act
[Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1987,539, Nov. 10, 1987) (Law No. 1988,99)
Patent Attorney Lee Il-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Na350 dated March 30, 1990
The original adjudication shall be reversed.
The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.
The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also determined.
1. The original decision is based on the premise that the similarity of a trademark on its grounds should be determined on the basis of whether there is a possibility of mistake or confusion between the two trademarks which are used for the same kind of goods by objectively, comprehensively, or externally observing the appearance, name, and concept of the two trademarks used for the same kind of goods and at any one of them.
In comparison with the two trademarks, the trademark of this origin and the cited trademark are referred to as the "Stop" as the "Stop" as it is in Korean and English, and there is a difference in the appearance in terms of the trademark in terms of its appearance. However, in comparison with the two trademarks, the trademark of this origin and the cited trademark are referred to as the "Stop" as the "Stop" as in Korean, while the trademark of this origin and the cited trademark are used as the original trademark, and the trademark of this origin and the cited trademark are used as the "Stop", and there is no difference in the cited trademark, fourth, the trademark of this origin and the cited trademark is used as the cited trademark, and fourth, there is no difference in the two trademarks, but the trademark of this origin, the first, second, negative, and third, the trademark of this case is identical to the trademark of this case, and the trademark of this case is used as the whole in the case of the combination of two trademarks, and thus, it is objectively similar to the two trademarks in terms of the two trademarks.
However, the similarity of trademarks is in principle to observe two trademarks used for the same kind of product as a whole and to compare and determine their appearance, name, and concept as a whole. However, only in exceptional cases where the combination of trademarks cannot be deemed natural and a series of indivisible, it is permitted to separate, separate, compare, and compare them. According to the records, the two trademarks are different in appearance as a lighting trademark, and there is no special concept and there is no possibility that the two trademarks can be separated, perceived, or abbreviationd in the name “Istosstos”, and “Istostos”, five in five in five in terms of the overall comparison, are different from each other, and even if they are used for the designated goods, there is no possibility of misconception or confusion as to the source of goods, and the judgment of the court below that "Istostos tostos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos tos to tos tos to the court.
Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)