[1] Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

[2] Whether the applied trademark "KONOS," "Cronos," and the cited trademark "CHCRNOSE," and "Cronodo-S," are similar (affirmative)

[3] Whether the designated goods of the trademark applied for registration are similar to those of 'serious boundary medication, identification system medication, identification system medication, circular organ medication, blood use medicine, cell side use medicine', and 'Amarsenalzine', which are the designated goods of the cited trademark (affirmative)

[1] Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined by whether there is a possibility of misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods in trade, on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel the trademark by observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same goods in an objective, overall, and separately from the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark. Even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible to avoid confusion as to the origin clearly as a whole, it shall not be deemed similar trademark, but if it is easy for ordinary consumers to mistake or confuse as to the origin of goods in trade, it shall be deemed a similar trademark.

[2] The application trademark "CronoS" and the cited trademark "Crono-S" are composed of a series of characters in Korean, and the three texts and the last letters of the above are the same with each other except where "do- is inserted in the middle of the cited trademark." The applied trademark "KONOS" is merely an English version of the applied trademark "KONOS", the applied trademark "KronoS", the cited trademark "CHONOSE", the cited trademark "CHONOSE", and the cited trademark "Crono-S" are similar to their appearance, and their trademarks are similar as a whole because there is no difference only to the extent that the previous part is identical with the previous part 3 degrees and the last one is added to the cited trademark "Do-A" in the cited trademark.

[3] The designated goods of the applied trademark, such as mid- and long-term drillings, cirrologys for identification, cirrology for circular engine use, blood solvents, cell side use medicine, and the designated goods of the cited trademark, 'Arrecerine medication', and 'brology medicine' under Article 6 (1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 83 of February 23, 1998), are those that belong to category 10 and treat human diseases, and their use is similar to that of category 4(m) under Article 6 (1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 83 of February 23, 1998). In light of

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [3] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Trademark Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 83 of Feb. 23, 1998)

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2842 delivered on November 23, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 54) / [1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2026 delivered on May 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1766), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu333 delivered on February 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 702), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3050 Delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 848) / [23] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu439 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 353535)

Fast M&VG (Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorneys Lee Ba-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 99Heo307 delivered on April 1, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to whether the cited trademark has distinctiveness

According to the records, the cited trademark (registration number 1 omitted; hereinafter referred to as "cronodo trademark (1)" means the cited trademark (registration number 2 omitted) which is the combined trademark, and the cited trademark is a trademark which is a trademark in Korean and has been continuously arranged with 10 characters, and its composition is not peculiar, nor is it naturally divided into crono (CHCRNONO) and the cited trademark which is a combination of the cited trademark (registration number 2 omitted), and even if it is used by the latter, it is hard to see that the cited trademark is a combination of the cited trademark (registration number 2 omitted, number 200) and the cited trademark is a combination of the cited trademark (registration number 2 omitted, number 200) and the cited trademark is not a combination of the cited trademark (registration number 2 omitted, number 200 and volume CHO) and it is difficult to see that the cited trademark and the cited trademark are a combination of the cited trademark with the above part of 'O' and the above part is an indivisible among general consumers in light of the concept of ' or the above parts of '.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to distinctiveness of a trademark as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and the precedents cited in the ground of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in this case

In addition, the argument in the grounds of appeal is that the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case are not special drugs that can be easily known or handled by ordinary consumers, and thus, it should be determined whether the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case constitute specific drugs such as doctors and pharmacists who are not ordinary consumers. However, there is no data to regard them as designated goods of the applied trademark of this case as

2. As to the similarity between the applied trademarks of this case and the cited trademarks

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether there is a concern that ordinary consumers or traders may mislead or confuse the origin of goods in trade by observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods objectively, comprehensively, and externally, in a separate manner, based on the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with respect to the trademark. Even if one of the appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible to avoid confusion of the origin clearly as a whole, it shall not be deemed a similar trademark, but if it is easy for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse because the name, name, and concept are similar in different parts, it shall be deemed a similar trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Hu439, Sept. 26, 1995; 97Hu2026, May 22, 1998).

Although the court below is somewhat inappropriate at the time of the explanation of its reasons, the trademark in this case (2) (2) (application number 1 omitted) and the trademark in this purport is composed of a series of Korean languages, and the three texts and the last letters are the same with each other except where ‘Do--' is inserted in the middle of the cited trademark (1). The trademark in this case (1) (2 omitted) and the trademark in this case (2 omitted) are merely English as to the applied trademark in this case (2). The trademark in this case and the cited trademark in this case are similar in appearance, and even in title, the trademark in this case are the same as the previous part 3 degrees and the last sound is the same as the cited trademark in this case, and there is no difference in the extent to which ‘Do--" is added to the cited trademark in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment as to whether the trademark in this case is a similar trademark, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to the similarity of designated goods

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that all the designated goods of the above trademarks belong to the category No. 10th category No. 10 of the former Trademark Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 83, Feb. 23, 1998) and the category of the drugs that treat human disease, and their quality and shape can not be easily distinguishable from that of ordinary consumers, and in light of the circumstances of trade, the designated goods of the above trademarks are similar to those of ordinary trade in light of the general trade norms.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Ultimately, all of the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)