Whether the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark (affirmative)

The application trademark and the cited trademark are similar to those in which the shape of the head of the kis, which are all essential parts in appearance, is similar, and as a whole, general consumers are likely to misunderstand the source of goods.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

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 original decision, the court below determined that the similarity of trademarks is likely to cause confusion between ordinary consumers and traders in cases where the original trademark is used for the designated goods because the overall appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are identical or similar to those of the original trademark, and the overall appearance, name, and concept are identical or similar to those of the original trademark at the time of comparison between the original trademark and the cited trademark, and if the original trademark is used for the designated goods, it would cause confusion between the cited trademark and the original trademark if it is used for the designated goods.

In comparison with the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and both the original trademark and the cited trademark are similar to the shape of the head of the land, which is the main part of appearance, and even though there are detailed differences as cited in the theory of lawsuit, the whole of the judgment below is just and it is similar that general consumers are likely to mislead the source of goods, and there are no errors in the rules of evidence, the violation of the rules of evidence, the lack of reasons, and the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Trademark Act, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents cited by theory cannot serve as a proper precedent for this case.

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 on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)