A. Whether the cited trademark has a special distinction (affirmative)

(b) Whether the trademark applied for is similar to the cited trademark registered priorly (affirmative)

A. The cited trademark, “pre-registered cited trademark”, “as a whole composition of this trademark,” indicating “pharmaceuticals which make a brutly genuine disease” cannot be deemed to be perceived as a general consumer or a trader, and thus, the cited trademark has a special distinction between goods of another person and goods of another person.

B. In a case where the “NGIN”, which is an essential part of the “NEO-NGIN”, is named as the “Bujin”, the applied trademark may be perceived as not only the same name as the “NGIN,” but also as the “new margin,” the applied trademark may cause general consumers or consumers to mistake or confuse the origin of goods if the applied trademark and the cited trademark are used as the same or similar designated goods. Thus, the applied trademark may not be registered as a similar trademark.

A. Article 2 (b) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 15, 1990)

Dbama-Cfinbaz, Inc., Counsel for the patent attorney Na Young-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant in the case of Baba-Bafinbaz, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 191 February 21, 1991, 90 Dog166

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant's attorney are examined.

1. The court below determined that the applicant is unable to obtain registration as a similar trademark falling under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990), since the applicant's application on Jun. 4, 198 and the applicant's trademark "NEO-GIN" and "NGIN", which is the trademark of another person by earlier application, are composed of two essential parts, such as "NEO" and "NGIN", and if the essential part of "NGIN" is called as "wru", it is identical to the cited trademark's name.

2. Among the characters constituting a cited trademark, the expression "forth", "forth," "forth," "forth," "forth," "forth," "forth," and "forth, for the purpose of expressing the quality, efficacy, etc. of a drug, which is the designated product." However, considering the overall composition of a trademark, it cannot be deemed that the trademark combining the above two two letters, indicating "the drug to fluorly fluorly fluorly fluorly fluor" like the novels, and thus, the cited trademark has a special distinction between the goods of another person, so it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the special modernization of the trademark, such as the theory of the original adjudication, which judged whether the cited trademark is similar to the cited trademark, on the premise that the trademark has distinctiveness of the goods of another person.

In addition, it is identical to the theory that the "NGIN", which is an essential part of the main trademark, may be produced as the "tension" or "nb". However, there are many cases where consumers who are not accurate in the foreign language, and where the main trademark is referred to as the "Annb" by the main part as above, it may be recognized as not only the name of the cited trademark, but also the original trademark as the "Annb" if the main trademark is referred to as the "Annb" by the main part as above. Therefore, if the main trademark and the cited trademark are used in the same or similar designated goods, it may be deemed that there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of goods. Accordingly, the decision of the court below that stated this purport is justified.

In the end, we cannot accept the argument that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act in the original trial decision.

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

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)