Whether "DUTRICEF" and "Trimanp" are similar trademarks (affirmative)

In English language, the word "DUTRICEF" and the word trademark "Trip" written in the Korean language are merely identical to the part other than the first one, and if the whole is referred to as a whole, it shall be referred to almost the same level to ordinary consumers or traders, and if it is used for the designated goods as the same kind of product, it shall not be ruled out that there is a concern that there may be misconception or confusion about the source of the product.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

Patent Attorney Park Li-Tool City, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 216 dated August 30, 1984 (Section 216)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal by the claimant are examined.

Whether or not a trademark is similar to a trademark should be determined on the basis of whether or not there is a possibility of mistake or confusion among the goods in the transaction by objectively, comprehensively, or separately observing the appearance, name, or concept of two trademarks used for the same or similar goods. The trademark of this case is a character trademark with "DUICEF" crossing in English, and the quoted trademark is different in Korean from its appearance in Korean, because both trademarks cannot be compared because they cannot be compared because they are different in English, and in terms, they cannot be mistaken for all of them, but in that name, the trademark of this case is referred to as "Ipp", "Ippp" or "Ipp" and the cited trademark is referred to as "Ipppp" and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to "Ippp" or "Ipppppp", and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to "Ippp" or "Ippppp" as a whole, and thus, it cannot be ruled that two trademarks are identical to "Ip."

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 judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)