The term "share sheet" as the cited trademark, and the later registered trademark "share sheet" as the cited trademark, and whether it is similar to the trademark of actual use as modified (affirmative)

The cited trademark is a text trademark marked in the "share sheet" and the actual use trademark is composed of a mark composed of the figure of "share" and the figure of "share sheet" between "share sheet" as well as "share sheet", and the cited trademark is named and recognized as "share sheet", while the actual use trademark is also called and recognized as "nurt" or "share sheet" by distinguishing it into the figure of "share sheet" or "share sheet" into the figure. Therefore, if the actual use trademark is named and recognized as only "share sheet" in light of the empirical rule of the trade society requiring simple rapid delay, it is likely that the cited trademark and the actual use trademark are similar to ordinary consumers or traders, and recognized as being likely to cause mistake and confusion in the source of goods.

Article 45 (1) 2 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

Patent Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Patent Attorney Shin Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

KIPO 197,198(Consolidated), 199(Joint Judgment) dated May 30, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the attorney of the respondent shall also be examined.

Since each of the above trademarks registered by the claimant for trial on its own reason is registered as the goods of Category 2 as the designated goods of Category 1 (Registration No. 1 omitted), trademark (Registration No. 2 omitted) is the character trademark marked as / [6]. (Registration No. 3 omitted) trademark is the combination trademark marked as / in Korean [1]. On the other hand, the cited trademark registered by the claimant for trial is the trademark with two categories of goods registered before the registration of each of the above trademarks, and (Registration No. 4 omitted) is the word trademark with the word "No. 5 (Registration No. 4 omitted)" and the word "No. 5 (Registration No. 4 omitted)" written trademark with the word "No. 5 (Registration No. 5)" written trademark with the word "No. 1, the word "No. 5," and the word "No. 1, the word "No. 5, the above trademark with the word "No. 5," and the trademark with the word "No. 1, the word "No. 5, the above mark" should be used.

In light of the records, we accept the fact-finding and judgment as above of the decision of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity judgment of trademarks such as theory of lawsuit, and this issue is without merit.

In addition, the fact that the name and location of the manufacturing establishment such as the novel are indicated cannot be said to cause mistake or confusion as to the source of the product, and the precedent of the novels cannot be an appropriate precedent in this case. Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the confusion of the source of the product.

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.