The case that reversed the original decision on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the decision on similarity of trademarks

The case that reversed the original decision on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the decision on similarity of trademarks

Article 9(1) of the Trademark Act

Attorney Kim Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Patent Attorney Park Yong-sik et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 193 decided Nov. 30, 1987

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

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below dismissed the applicant's appeal on the ground that the trademark of this case and the cited trademark of this case are similar in appearance to the other five alphaba, and that the trademark in this case appears to be externally similar in appearance, and that the cited trademark is similar in English, and that the cited trademark is similar in the name of "gradation".

However, when comparing the trademark with the cited trademark in light of the record, the former uses the alpha gate, and the cited trademark itself is in conformity with the empirical rule to see the alpha alpha as being a one-way other trademark due to its unique characteristics, and if so, the alpha alpha alpha alpha alpha alpha should be used by the company of the French does not have a significant difference from the cited trademark "Alpha" because the alpha alpha alpha alpha alpha alpha alpha alpha alpha alpha". However, the dismissal of a request for a trial by the court below under the above instruction cannot be said to have erred by misapprehending the alpha

The appeal pointed out this point is justified.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)