[거절사정][공1989.9.1.(855),1237]
Criteria for determining whether or not the license cards are identical or similar thereto;
Whether or not the same or similar goods in the Slves list shall be determined by the common sense of transaction depending on the appearance, name, or concept, etc. of the similar goods, and it shall be determined by whether or not it is likely to be mistaken for the same business. The classification of goods or Slves business under the Enforcement Rules of the Trademark Act, which is divided into a kind of goods or Slves business according to the convenience of trademark registration, shall not be deemed the same or similar type merely because it is classified into the same type as the convenience of trademark registration, and it shall be determined by the contents of the designated Slves business.
Article 2(5) of the Trademark Act, Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act
Patent Attorney Hwang-soo et al., Counsel for the applicant
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 87Na457 dated August 11, 1988
The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In examining the similarity between the "New Stenographic Republic of Korea" and the "Sten-Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener, the former is combined with the obvious part of "Stener," and its essential part is "Stener," and the former appears to be "Stener," and the latter is in the appearance, and there is a partial difference in the English name, but in the case of the designated Stener Stener Stener, both are identical in terms of the name and concept and the designated Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener Stener, which is similar in the overall, objective and e.g.
In light of the above, a trademark used by a person engaged in a documentary fishing business to distinguish the documentary fishing business from that of another person (Article 2(2) of the Trademark Act) is a trademark used by a person engaged in a documentary fishing business and has a special real name (Article 2(5) of the Trademark Act). Under Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act, a trademark which is identical or similar to another person's registered trademark by an earlier application and is used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark cannot be registered. Thus, whether a documentary fishing business is identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark is determined according to the trade norms, and whether it is likely to be mistaken for the same business, and the classification of goods of the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act or the documentary fishing business shall not be determined by the same type of goods or similar to the registered goods of the registered trademark under Article 9(5) of the Trademark Act. Thus, it shall not be deemed that the classification of goods of the registered trademark under the Trademark Act into the same type of goods or the convenience of the trademark business.
The registration of this case and the quoted language service table all belong to the category 112 of the Steners classification. However, the designated language service business is a Stenographic Research Institute management business, and the quoted language service table cannot be deemed as identical or similar to the department store management business, horse race track management business, foreign language private teaching institute management business.
In the end, the original trial decision has influenced the result of the trial decision by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the same or similar kind of business. Therefore, the argument pointing this out is with merit.
Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Appeal Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)