Whether the application trademark "PROFSISS CADM" and the cited trademark "PROFESSONAL" are similar (negative)

The determination of a trademark similar should be made by observing the appearance, name, and concept objectively, as a whole, in an objective, overall, and separately, and on the basis of whether there is a concern for ordinary consumers to confuse the source of the designated goods in the transaction of each of the designated goods based on the direct perception that the general consumers feel about the two trademarks. In the name, the trademark applied for trademark "PROFSOSS CADM" refers to "cardam" and the trademark applied for trademark "PRFSOSSONAL", which is named as "prour", cannot be deemed as similar to that that of causing confusion among consumers. In terms of the concept, the trademark applied for trademark refers to "specialized Camer", and the trademark applied for trademark consists of "specialized Camer", and even in appearance, the trademark applied for trademark is in conflict with the English language, and it cannot be deemed as similar to each other.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Patent Attorney Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 694 dated October 31, 1988

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The original decision held that the original trademark "PRFS ISS CADM" is a trademark marked with "PDR CADM, and the designated goods are the diskss, etc. contained in the 39th category computer program, and the cited trademark "PRESSINAL" stated in the bottom where the "PRPOFSONAL" was crossed out, and the designated goods constitute the trademark law Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, since the goods are likely to be confused with the origin of the goods with the mark "PRFSOSINAL" in the bottom where the "PRISONAL" was crossed out in the English text, the designated goods are the type of cuter, telephone, set, set, electronic set, set, set, set, set, set, set, frequency, and electric set, and the two trademarks are identical to the general consumers or consumers in the trade of the same designated goods and are likely to be confused with the origin of the goods.

The determination of trademark similarity should be based on whether there is a concern for ordinary consumers to recognize and confuse the source of the designated goods in the transaction of each of the designated goods by observing the appearance, name, and concept objectively, as a whole, in an objective, overall, and separately, and on whether the transaction of each of the designated goods is likely to cause confusion as to the source of the designated goods. The trademark of this subparagraph is referred to as the "propersday", and the trademark of this subparagraph is referred to as the "propersday", and it is not similar as to cause confusion to consumers as a whole in terms of the title "car", and in terms of the concept, the trademark of this subparagraph is referred to as the "specialized carmer" and the cited trademark is referred to as the "professional carmer", and in terms of appearance, the trademark of this subparagraph consists solely of the English language, whereas the cited trademark is not similar to the trademark of this case, as it is combined with the Korean trademark of this case.

In the end, the original trial decision has influenced the result of the trial decision by misunderstanding the legal principles of judgment on similarity of trademarks.

Therefore, without determining the remaining grounds of appeal, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)