Whether the trademark and the cited trademark(1) are similar to the cited trademark(2)(3)

The registered trademark "Tex" and the cited trademark (1) are similar to the external appearance and name, and eventually the registered trademark is similar to the cited trademark.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 118 others (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Bangladesh Group Liber (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

100 10 10 10 10 20

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office 154 decided Feb. 27, 1992

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the claimant's attorney are also examined.

1. The court below rejected the following facts: "The trademark of this case" means 9 items, such as animal medicine of the 10th category 10 category of the product classification, and 5 items, such as the cited trademark "," "," and "," as five items, such as animal medicine of the 10th category 10 category of each product classification, and chemical medicine. In comparison with the similarity between the trademark of this case and the cited trademark, the trademark of this case is called "Tex" or "Tex", while the cited trademark of this case is named as "Tex" or "Tex". Thus, since the trademark of this case and the cited trademark of this case are composed of relatively simple two parts, only one sound, and it is clearly distinguishable from the trademark of this case's 10th category 1, the trademark of this case's name and cited trademark of this case's 10th category 1, which is identical to the trademark of this case's 9th category 1, which is identical to the trademark of this case's 90th category 1, and the two trademarks are different from the two.

2. In determining whether a trademark falls under Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act, the issue of whether two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are similar shall be determined based on whether there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods in light of the common sense of transaction by observing objectively, comprehensively and externally in terms of appearance, name, and concept.

A. First of all, the examination of whether the trademark "Tex" and "Tex", the cited trademark (1) are similar to the appearance in terms of appearance, is a case where the appearance of the trademark is similar to that of the appearance, and if the appearance of the trademark was claimed and observed from the viewpoint of appearance, such as characters, diagrams, signs, etc., compared to two trademarks, they are likely to be confused with each other. Therefore, in determining whether the appearance is similar, it is necessary to have a emulative and vertical observation in particular. The trademark of this case is indicated by a printing body and the cited trademark (1) was marked by a pen, but both letters were added to only one "Tex" and only one "Tex", which is the trademark of this case, are similar to that of the trademark of this case, and if the shape of the trademark of this case is moved, it appears similar to that of the trademark of this case, it appears that it is similar to the overall appearance of the trademark of this case, and it appears that it is similar to the overall appearance of the two trademarks.

B. Next, the issue of whether the trademark of this case and the cited trademark of this case are similar in terms of the name is examined, and the name of the text trademark should be observed in light of the empirical rule with sound naturally produced when reading the letters marked. The first sound of the trademark of this case "1" and the first sound of the cited trademark "1", the first sound of the trademark of this case, " 1, the first negative of "1" and the cited trademark (1)", are not clearly distinguishable from the second sound of the two trademarks, while the second sound "T" and the initial character "G", which are the second sound of the two trademarks, are not clearly distinguishable from the other trademark, in light of our empirical rule, it is reasonable to see that the two letters are naturally visible distinctive in terms of the second sound, and in light of our language, it is reasonable to see that the second sound is not easily distinguishable from the two trademarks as a whole.

C. Thus, although the trademark of this case can only be seen as similar to the cited trademark of a claimant who made an earlier application, the court below judged that the two trademarks are different trademarks when they are comprehensively observed differently from their appearance, name, and concept. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the similarity of trademarks in the original trial decision, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the trial decision. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the case shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the appellate court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yoon Yong-ho (Presiding Justice)