Whether trademark "G-JY" and "GREEN-JY BYOT-JY" are similar (affirmative)

With respect to the similarity between the cited trademark "G-JY" and the cited trademark "GREEN-JYS BYOY", the cited trademark is a combination of two essential parts of "GREN-JYS" and "FOT-JY" and it is a combination of two essential parts of "GREN-JYS" and "BY", and it is not a combination of new concepts beyond the original meaning of each of the above parts or separate observation of these parts so that it is not indivisible to the extent of natural confusion, and it can be conceptualized and conceptualized only by "GREEN-JN-JYS" as one of the above essential parts, and in this case, it is similar to the designated goods of "GREN-JYS" as the designated goods of "GREN-GYS" as the first part of the above part.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1179 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 832), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1824 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2124), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1395 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 553), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1456 delivered on March 8, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1260)

Applicant (Patent Attorney Tae-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94Na2067 Dated December 15, 1995

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

The grounds of appeal by the applicant's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, with respect to the similarity of the cited trademark "G-JY" (hereinafter this original trademark) registered by earlier application with the cited trademark "GREEN-JY BYOY" (registration No. 1 omitted), the cited trademark is a combination of "GREN-JYS" and "FOT-JY" and "BY", and the cited trademark is a combination of two main parts of "GREEN-JY" and "FOY" and the above combination of these parts, which results in new concepts or separate observation of these parts, and thus, the court below's decision that the trademark is inconsistent with the above provision of "GEN-YYS" and "GYYY" can be viewed as being a combination of the above parts of the trademark, and it can be viewed as a combination of the above "GEN-YYS" and "GYY" as a similar trademark in light of the tendency of ordinary consumers to memory the trademark through a simple name or concept, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the designated goods.

However, in comparison with the cited trademark, it is wrong that the part of the original trademark's "G" in comparison with the original trademark is reduced by the "GREN" of the cited trademark. However, even though the above part of the original trademark's "G" is not reduced by the "GREN", it is sufficient for ordinary consumers to recognize that the above part of the original trademark's "G" in comparison with the cited trademark is reduced by the "GREN" in comparison with the original trademark, so such error cannot be deemed to have affected the result of the trial decision, and the cited trademark's name and concept cannot be accepted as a whole because it is merely an independent opinion, and since the trademark's registration permit is judged individually by the trademark and the designated goods, the trademark, including the part of the original trademark's "G", is registered as the designated goods within the designated goods of the product category like the original trademark, and there is no reason to view that the trademark is different from the designated goods of this case.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)