A. Whether the main trademark "Canaon" is identical or similar to the cited trademark "Canaon" and the cited trademark "Canaon"

(b) Where a trademark identical or similar to a well-known trademark is used for goods of different types, the register;

A. Although a trademark consisting solely of a character trademark written in English and a trademark written in Korean as well as a trademark written in English as "Canon" is different from the existence of a "written in Korean characters", the remaining part of the trademark is completely the same as the English characters, and the composition or appearance of the word is similar as well as the composition or appearance of the word "Canon" is referred to as "gron" in accordance with the English text notation, so it is identical in its title, and its concept is extremely similar.

B. In a case where a trademark is widely recognized among consumers, if the trademark is used, and the goods identical or similar to the well-known trademark are used, and even if the designated goods are different from each other, one company is recognized as being produced and sold by a person having a trademark right or a person having a special relationship with him/her in light of the modern industrial structure such as the production and sale of various different kinds of goods in many different fields of industry, and thus, it is likely that consumers mistake the place of goods and business, and thus, such trademark should be rejected in accordance with Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act or Article 9(1)11 of the same Act.

Article 9(1) of the Trademark Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 83Hu43 delivered on September 11, 1984, 84Hu51 delivered on December 11, 1984, 85Hu97 delivered on March 11, 1986, and 85Hu136 delivered on March 11, 1986

United States Co., Ltd.

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 418 dated September 23, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

According to the records, the original trademark is a character trademark which combines English and Korean characters with the cited trademark, and the cited trademark is merely a character trademark which consists of "Canon". Although there is a difference between the two trademarks, the remaining parts are identical with English characters and their composition or appearance, as well as the word "Canon" is called the word "graon" according to the English appearance, it is reasonable to view that the trademark is identical in its title, and its concept is extremely similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Hu97, Mar. 11, 1986) and that if any trademark is recognized remarkably among consumers, the original trademark is not identical with or similar to the well-known trademark, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to goods which are identical with or similar to the trademark, or goods which are identical with or similar to the above, and even if the remaining parts are identical with English characters and thus, it is recognized that the trademark is identical to or similar to the new goods of this case, and thus, it should be recognized that the new goods of this case are manufactured or similar goods.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)