Whether “the similarity” and “the cited trademark” are “the similarity” (affirmative)

The applicant trademark " and the cited trademark " and the cited trademark "" have a sign with the word "hick wheels" in both trademarks in appearance even if there is a difference between English and Korean, and the appearance is similar to the appearance of the trademark, and in the name, the applied trademark is generally referred to as a "prowheel" or "wheel chairs", but there is a possibility that the cruel figure can be referred to as a "hick wheels" as a "hick wheels" trademark," and the quoted trademark is referred to as a "hick wheels" in accordance with the mark of Korean, so the similarity of the name is not entirely excluded, and both trademarks have the same concept as "hick wheels" in the concept, and even if the appearance, name, concept, and similarity are observed differently, the same and similarity cannot be excluded.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act

Mad Madern Madern Cambodia (Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 88 No. 936 dated December 6, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below held that the trademark of this case is similar to the appearance because the word "resresponding quis" is written on the right upper part of the trademark, and the word "the combination trademark of figures and letters marked "the same as the above," and the cited trademark at the original time is a combination trademark of figures and letters marked "the same diagrams as the above," and the word "the several wheels" in Korean at the bottom of the trademark, and there is a difference between the two trademarks in English and Korean, and the word "the several wheels". The trademark of this case is called as the word "propys" or "wheel chairs", and it is just in the court below's decision that the trademark of this case is identical to the above word "the two wheelss", and it is not identical to the above word "the two wheelss", and it is not identical in light of the legal reasoning and the concept "the two wheelss", and it is not identical to the above, even if the trademark of this case is identical to the word "the two wheelss".

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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)