Whether the applied trademark “MABEL” is similar to the “ma” of the prior-registered trademark (affirmative)

E

The applied trademark "MABEL" and the prior registered trademark "ma" are different from each other in its appearance.

E

B. In the case of the applied trademark, the part of the MA “MA” which can be considered as a part of the ‘MA’ which is generally familiar with the meaning of ‘mMA’ is considered as a part of the trademark, so if the “MABEL” is abbreviationd into the ‘MA”, the trademark is identical to the trademark in its name and concept, and thus both trademarks are similar in terms of the whole.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Hu608 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2624) Supreme Court Decision 93Hu626 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2426), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu484 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3628), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1395 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 553)

T. L. L. L. L. S. T. L. S. S. W. L. T. T. S. S. W. L. L.S. (Patent Attorney Park Yong-sik, Counsel

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 95Na287 dated May 6, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

In accordance with the record, both trademarks are in their appearance as to whether or not they are similar to a registered trademark (registration No. 70072) by an earlier application (registration No. 70072) of the original trademark “MABEL” and “ma” (hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark”).

E

Although different from each other, in the original trademark, the "MAMA" portion, which is called the "MaMA" and can be called the "MAMA" part which is the part which is generally familiar with the original trademark, is identical to the original trademark in its name and concept, so both trademarks are identical to the original trademark in its name and concept. Thus, if both trademarks are used for the designated goods of the same or similar kind, the designated goods may cause mistake and confusion as to the source of goods, and thus, the original trademark cannot be registered in accordance with Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

Although the court below's explanation of its reasoning is insufficient, it is proper that the court below judged that the trademark of this origin is not eligible for registration without any need to prepare for any other prior-registered trademark than that of another prior-registered trademark in the above purport, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks, or in the incomplete hearing,

The precedents of party members required to bring a lawsuit are different from those of this case, and it is inappropriate to rely on this case. There is no reason for this argument.

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.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)