B. Criteria for determining like goods under the Trademark Act

(c) The case holding that electric ionbed rice booms, material resources for electrical production, electricity smells, and electric wires cannot be deemed to be goods of the same kind or similar kind, which are electrical equipment such as designated goods electric motors, electric winders, electric wave bars, electrical compoundings, television, and electric marblings

B. Whether a trademark is identical to the designated goods of the same kind shall be determined in accordance with the transaction norms in light of their quality, use, shape, and circumstances of transaction, etc. In addition, goods of the same kind as those of the Rules of the Trademark Act, even if they fall under the category of goods of the same kind as those of the Rules of the Trademark Act, may be used for the same kind of goods, and there may

(c) From among the first designated goods of a claimant’s registered trademark, if comparing with electric ionobbbbb, electric snicking, electric smelling, electric smelling, and other designated goods added to the trademark claimed for invalidation of registration among those registered as the first designated goods, both parties may not be deemed to have identical or similar goods in light of the use, form, actual condition of transaction, etc. of the goods even though they are the same in the sense that they are electricity organizations, in light of the use, form, and actual condition of the goods.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, this trademark is a combination trademark with diagrams and letters marked across the national language, and the combination trademark on December 7, 1964, which is a product of Category 18 of the Product Classification 1964, which is registered as the designated goods and added to the designated goods on June 4, 1973. The designated goods are electric verbing, electric melting, smelling, electric smelling, electric smelling, electric snick, electric snicking, electric snick, snick, snick, brying, snick, brying, brying, brying, booming, and booming, 11432 of the cited trademark, which is a combination trademark with two different figures, such as electric snicking, Englishized, 36.27, 196, 36.6.7, 197, 197.6.7, 197.

However, according to Article 15 of the former Trademark Act (Act No. 71, Nov. 28, 1949) which was in force at the time of the registration of the above designated goods, trademark interest holders registered have the right to exclusively use goods or business designated by the classification table separately, and Article 19 of the same Act provides that they may register correction of goods or business similar to those designated in the same classification table, and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the designated goods can be classified into classes 1 through 53 of the same Act. However, the goods list is classified into categories 1 through 53 of the same Act. However, the goods of the same kind can not be determined by the law as the goods of the same kind are classified into the convenience of the trademark registration, and it is difficult to cope with the fixed classification of goods by the development of a large number of new goods due to industrial development. This is also because the trademark interest holders have the right to exclusively use the goods designated by the classification table and the name of goods specified in the above Enforcement Rule.

Therefore, the same kind of goods shall be decided in accordance with the principles of transaction in light of their quality, use, form, and actual condition of transaction. It can be decided in accordance with the above list of goods belonging to the same kind of goods as the above, and there may be like goods even if they belong to different kind of goods (see Supreme Court Decision 70Hu16, Sept. 17, 1970). When registration of this trademark is additionally made, it cannot be said that the first one of the designated goods under subparagraph 18 of the above Regulation belongs to the goods under category 18 of the above Regulation, because it is unclear whether it belongs to the goods under category 39 or not under category 18 of the above Regulation, and it cannot be said that the first one of the designated goods under subparagraph 13 of the above Article 1432 cannot be viewed as identical to the designated goods under category 18 of the above Regulation, because the first one among the designated goods under subparagraph 14 of the above Table of the same Article cannot be seen as being identical to the designated goods under category 39 of the above.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)