A. Whether an applied trademark “CARIDOPINT” is a technical trademark (negative)

B. Method of determining the similarity of combined trademarks

C. Method of determining the similarity of designated goods

(d) Whether the trademark applied for registration is similar to the trademark "CARDIOOPINT" and the trademark cited for prior registration (1) and the cited trademark "PINTS" (2) (negative)

(e) Whether the designated goods of the applied trademark “Isk for cardio-blood transfusions” and the designated goods of the cited trademark “Isk for treatment, clinic, cleaning, cleaning equipment, charging equipment, reticulating equipment, brotochloros, brotochloros, brotochloros, and rubber cream equipment for dental purposes” (negative)

가. 출원상표인 “CARDIOPOINT”라는 용어는 심장의 뜻을 가진 “CARDIO”와 뾰족한 끝, 바늘, 돌출한 것, 점, 반점, 얼룩, 눈금, 득점, 점수, 정도, 한계점, 사항, 항목, 요점, 취지, 목적 등의 뜻을 가진 “POINT”를 결합시킨 단어로서 영어사전이나 과학기술용어집에도 없는 새로운 조어인바, 결합된 단어의의미로 보아 그 지정상품인 심장혈관용 바늘의 성질 내지 용도를 어느 정도 암시하는 상표로 볼 여지는 있으나 "CARDIOPOINT"라는 용어 자체는 일체불가분적으로 결합된 새로운 조어로서 심장혈관용 바늘의 성질 내지 용도를 보통으로 사용하는 방법으로 표시한 것으로는 볼 수 없다.

(b) The similarity of trademarks is, in principle, to observe two trademarks used in the same product as a whole and to review and determine their external appearance, concepts, and names by comparing them, and the combination of trademarks can separate, extract, and compare and compare their constituent parts only when the combination cannot be deemed natural and a series of inequality.

C. Whether the designated goods are identical or similar shall be determined in accordance with the transactional norms by taking into account the quality, use, form, and circumstances of transaction of the goods. The commodity oil list under the Trademark Act is classified as the convenience of trademark registration business and does not have the same kind of goods. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the designated goods belong to the same kind of goods or similar in the above milk list.

(d) The appearance of the applied trademark “CARIDOPINT” and the cited trademark(1) and the cited trademark(2) of the cited trademark “PINTS” are different, and the applied trademark is a new structure that is incorporated into a single and indivisible combination without English prior approval, etc., and cannot be called or conceptualized as “CARDIO” and “POINT”, and its name and concept are not similar to the cited trademark. It is difficult to see that the concept of “PINT” from the applied trademark contains the concept of “PINT”.

E. The designated goods of the trademark applied for trademark "for cardio-cerebrovasit Bay" and the designated goods of the cited trademark "for example, clinic, cleaning, cleaning equipment, charging apparatus, Boschen Ironer, brokeerer, brokeer, dental rubber bed and rubber bed for dental use" belong to the same category group as the designated goods of the applied trademark in the product classification table of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act. However, in case of the product tax item, the designated goods of the cited trademark belong to Item 3 (the designated goods of the applied trademark for treatment) and Item 5 (the cited trademark's designated goods are sold in general medical appliances, and the cited trademark's designated goods are separate dental material sales, and the consumers are distinguished from the ordinary doctor and dentist, as well as the general medical machinery and appliances and dental appliances are recognized as different in light of ordinary transaction norms, they cannot be deemed as similar to the designated goods of the applied trademark.

A. Article 8 (1) 3(b) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

B. Supreme Court Decision 86Hu121 delivered on February 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 539) 90Hu1147 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 487) 90Hu1338 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 177). Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1687, 1694 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1865) 91Hu1793 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1867) 92Hu87 delivered on August 14, 1992

Cambodian Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and two others

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1498 delivered on January 30, 1992

The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for Appeal.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The technical trademark under Article 8 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 426, Jan. 13, 1990) refers to a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating in a common way the origin, quality, raw materials, efficacy, use, quantity, shape, price, production method, processing method, method, use method or time of the goods. Thus, a mark indicating the quality, use, etc. of the goods in a common way other than in common use does not constitute a technical trademark that cannot be registered.

기록에 의하여 살펴보면 본원상표인 “CARDIOPOINT”라는 용어는 심장의 뜻을가진 “CARDIO”와 뾰족한 끝, 바늘, 돌출한 것, 점, 반점, 얼룩, 눈금, 득점,점수, 정도, 한계점, 사항, 항목, 요점, 취지, 목적등의 뜻을 가진 “POINT”를 결합시킨 단어로서 영어사전이나 과학기술용어집에도 없는 새로운 조어인바, 결합된 단어의 의미로 보아 그 지정상품인 심장혈관용바늘의 성질 내지 용도를 어느 정도 암시하는 상표로 볼 여지는 있으나 “CARDIOPOINT”라는 용어자체는 일체 불가분적으로 결합된 새로운 조어로서 심장혈관용 바늘의 성질 내지용도를 보통으로 사용하는 방법으로 표시한 것으로는 볼 수 없다.

Therefore, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration requirements of technical trademarks in the original trial decision, which is a technical trademark indicating the nature of designated goods.

There is reason to point this out.

2. According to Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act, a trademark which is identical with or similar to another person's registered trademark by an earlier application and is used for goods identical with or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark cannot be registered. Whether the trademark is similar to a trademark is in principle determined by observing two trademarks used for the same kind of goods as a whole and examining and assessing the appearance, concept, and name thereof, and only if the combination of trademarks cannot be deemed natural or indivisible, its constituent parts can be separated, extracted, compared, and compared (see Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1338, May 28, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1147, Dec. 11, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 86Hu121, Feb. 24, 1987). Meanwhile, whether the designated goods are identical or similar to those of the registered trademark cannot be determined by considering the quality of the goods, the purpose of use of the transaction, and the actual condition of the goods of the same kind under the Trademark Act.

According to the records, this original trademark is a trademark composed of English as "CARIOINT" and the cited trademark (1) composed of "paz" and the cited trademark (2) is a trademark composed of "PINTS" composed of Korean characters and English characters. In preparation for two trademarks, the appearance is different. In addition, this original trademark is a new structure that is combined with "CARIO" and "PINT" without English advance, and it cannot be called or conceptualized as a whole, and it cannot be seen as a combination with "CARIO" and "PINT", and it cannot be deemed that the concept of "POINT" was generated from the original trademark, and its name and concept are not similar to the cited trademark. Further, the original trademark and cited trademark are identical with the trademark of the same kind (11) group (1) group (1) group (2) group) with the trademark of the same kind as the trademark of the Trademark Act, and the designated goods of the general manufacturer and appliances are not similar to the designated goods of the designated goods of the general manufacturer and appliances.

Nevertheless, the original trademark is similar to the cited trademark, and the designated goods are similar to the designated goods, and there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act as to the similarity of the trademark and goods. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)