A. Whether this part of the trademark “A QUSKIN” and the cited trademark “A QUAIR” are identical or similar

Cuba

B. Purport of and criteria for determining the provision of Article 8(1)3 of the Trademark Act

A. Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined by whether the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark is objectively, overall, and are likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the product by observing the appearance, name, and concept objectively, as a whole, and whether the trademark is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the product. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is clearly viewed as a whole and clearly likely to avoid confusion as to the origin, considering the other factors, it shall not be deemed a similar trademark. Therefore, when comparing the cited trademark with the “A QUSKIN” as the original trademark, the two are different from the composition, and even if the first head’s “A QUAA” is the same, the original trademark bears the “SKIN” as the cited trademark, and the cited trademark is a “quota”, and the cited trademark cannot be deemed identical or similar when observing the trademark in a whole manner.

B. Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act provides that the trademark cannot be used exclusively by a specific person and it is hard to distinguish between the request of the public interest that the trademark cannot be used exclusively for the exclusive use of the trademark from the other person's like goods. Thus, the issue of whether the trademark constitutes it shall be determined according to the transaction situation of the goods in Korea, and even if the trademark seems to indicate or emphasize the quality, efficacy, and use of the designated goods, it shall not be deemed that general traders or consumers cannot be recognized as displaying the simple quality, efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods when considering the overall composition of goods.

Articles 9(1)7 and 8(1)3 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Hu55 delivered on December 28, 1982, 82Hu31 delivered on January 18, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 86Hu69 delivered on September 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Hu51 delivered on July 21, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 85Hu40 delivered on October 28, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 84Hu21 delivered on April 28, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Hu95 delivered on December 8, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Hu96 delivered on December 8, 1987

Maz Roz Roz Roz Roz Rocop Maz. Patent Attorney Park Woo-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 86 Section 325 dated April 30, 1987

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Whether or not a trademark is similar under the Trademark Act shall be determined by whether or not there is a concern of misconception or confusion as to the origin of a product by observing the external name, name, and concept objectively, as a whole, the trademark is not similar if it is clearly possible to avoid confusion as to the origin, considering the overall appearance, name, and concept, even if one of the similar trademarks is similar. In comparison with the cited trademark "A-SUSKIN" and the cited trademark, the original trademark is composed only in English, and the cited trademark is composed of not only in English and Korean, but also in the original trademark "A-SUA" of the original head, even if the cited trademark "SKIN4 attached to the cited trademark "IR" and even if the original trademark is a synthetic trademark as indicated in its reasoning, it is not likely to mislead or confuse the original trademark as a "accus" and it is difficult to mislead the original trademark as a whole when observing the overall trademark as to whether or not the cited trademark is identical.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The argument is with merit.

2. The original decision has ruled that the meaning of the original trademark falls under the use or the indication of the quality of the goods when considering that it is related to the designated trademark in terms of the meaning of the material volume and reduced skin, etc.

However, Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act provides that it is difficult to distinguish the trademark from the public interest request that the trademark cannot be used exclusively by a specific person and the relation between the like product and the like product of another person. Thus, the issue of whether the trademark constitutes it shall be determined in accordance with the transaction situation of the relevant product in Korea, and even if the trademark seems to indicate or emphasize the quality, efficacy, and use of the designated product, it shall not be deemed that the ordinary trader or consumer cannot be perceived that the mere quality of the designated product is an expression of efficacy, use, etc. when considering the overall product composition.

Therefore, while the original trademark of this case is derived from the nicotine language as an English language, it cannot be seen as being recognized or recognized as a " QUASKIN" in the general quality, efficacy, shape, etc. of the consumer's social concept. Therefore, it is difficult to regard it as a trademark only with a package indicating the quality or use of the designated goods in a common way. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize distinctiveness in the transaction of the designated goods, or it cannot be said that the original trademark is difficult to recognize or its exclusive use is detrimental to the public interest.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 8(1)3 of the Trademark Act, which deemed that the original trademark constitutes the indication or quality labelling of designated goods. The allegation is with merit.

Therefore, the original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)