Whether the application trademark "NIFLUGL" and the cited trademark "NIFULO" are similar

(b) Even if “NFLUGL” is actually referred to as “NFL”, the part indicating the nature of the designated goods among them is an undistinctive part, so the essential part of the applied trademark is “NFLU”, which is extremely similar to the cited trademark “NFULO”, and both trademarks are similar.

n. Nurro

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

라보라톼르위프에스아 소송대리인 변리사 이준구

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 91Na1912 decided July 31, 1993

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 decision of the court below, the court below maintained the original decision rejecting the registration of the original trademark on the ground that the letter "GEL" among the original trademark's letter labeling "GEL" constitutes an additional part which has no distinctive character as to the goods' character, and thus the original trademark's essential part constitutes "NIFL". This is extremely similar to the cited trademark and its name "NIFLU", and thus, it is judged that both trademarks are similar trademarks likely to be mistaken or confused when observing both trademarks in the whole, objective, and external manner. Further, both trademarks are designated goods as the same kind of product as the designated trademark, and they are likely to mislead or confuse consumers if they are used on the designated goods.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and determination of the original decision of the court below are justified, and even if the original trademark is referred to as 'Negel' in fact, the part "GEL", which indicates the nature of the designated goods, is an undistinctive part, so it does not compare the similarity between the cited trademark and the cited trademark, and it does not constitute a difference between the original trademark and the cited trademark, and both trademarks can avoid confusion of the source as a whole.

Therefore, as pointed out in the decision of the court below, the misapprehension of legal principles is not recognized. There is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)