Whether or not "RYAL PACIFIC SERVE" and "ROYAL" are similar to "RYAL" (affirmative)

In light of the tendency to simplify the name or concept of a trademark in the general trade sector, it is difficult to see that the trademark "RYAPA CIFIC SERE" is combined with three fishing gear to form a single name or concept. In addition, in light of the tendency to simplify the name or concept of the trademark in the general trade sector, it is easy for ordinary consumers to recognize the name or concept by omitting it into "RYAL" or "PACIFIC", each of the above words is an essential part that has a special distinction to represent the entire trademark, and the name, concept, and appearance of the "RYAL" are similar to that of the "RYAL" as the cited trademark whose goods are the same kind of goods, and the trademark applied as a whole cannot be seen as a trademark similar to the cited trademark as a whole.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Hu520, 1516 Decided November 28, 1989

[Defendant-Appellant] Jyd E. E. E. S. S. S. Royk-ro et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 87Hun-won 507 dated August 31, 198

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 of the applicant’s attorney are also examined.

Whether or not a trademark is similar under the Trademark Act shall be determined by whether or not two trademarks used for the same kind of product are likely to cause mistake or confusion in the trade of trademarks by observing objectively, comprehensively, differently from the three aspects of appearance, name, and concept. Even if there are different parts among trademarks, if it is easy to cause confusion as a result of comparison with the above criteria, it shall be deemed as a similar trademark.

According to the records, the trademark of this case is a trademark marked as "RYAL PACIFIC SERVE" in English, and the cited trademark is a "RYAL" composed of diagrams and English persons, and all of the goods of the same kind are designated goods.

However, it is difficult to view that the trademark of this case is "RYAL PACIFIC SERE" as a single name or concept in combination with three gears, and in light of the tendency to simplify the name or concept of the trademark in general trade sector, it is easy for ordinary consumers to recognize the name or concept by omitting the name or concept of the trademark into "RYAL" or "PACIFIC", each of the above words is an essential part with a special distinction capable of representing the whole trademark. Since the name, concept, and appearance of "Du RYAL" are similar to those of the cited trademark, the above applied trademark as a whole cannot be seen as a trademark similar to those of the cited trademark.

The original trial decision to the purport above is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the essential part of a trademark, or omission of judgment or misapprehension of legal principles.

In addition, if the decision of the court below is contrary to the precedents of the examination and trial of trademark applications rendered by the Korean Intellectual Property Office, which is the other party, the decision of the court below cannot be concluded to have committed an unlawful act that undermines the stability of law, since it does not change the previous opinion.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)