[1] Whether the "niveter value" is a technical mark with no distinctive character

[2] Whether the designated goods are similar to the "security machine" and the "TV receiver" (affirmative)

[1] The cited trademark is a combination of ‘Hgh' and ‘Tocode' in English. ‘Hagh' has high level, high level, high level, and high level, and ‘Tom' has high level of damages to ordinary consumers or customers, and it can be accepted as ‘high degree, high contact, high level, contact, and high degree of contact'. If the cited trademark is used in the designated goods which can be related to contact, promotion, etc., the designated goods can be seen as ‘electronic, electronic cal calculator, telephone, tele tape tape tape, tape tape, tape tape, etc.', and if it can be used in the designated goods, it can be seen that the quality of the designated goods is excellent, but if it can be used in the designated goods, it is difficult to use it in the designated goods in the designated goods, not in the designated goods, it can be seen that the designated goods can be used in the designated goods in accordance with the technical characteristics of ‘specific goods' such as ‘TV receiving' and ‘TV receiving'.

[2] Examining the similarity between the security machine and the TV receiver among the designated goods of the cited trademark at this source, the quality and shape of the two goods are different, but in terms of their use, the security machine is attached to the TV receiver, and the two goods are similar goods in light of their transactional norms.

[1] Articles 6(1)3 and 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu114 delivered on November 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3277), Supreme Court Decision 95Do702 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3030), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1647 delivered on May 31, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2030) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu265 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1863), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu217 delivered on October 13, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3792), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu16365 delivered on April 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 195Ha, 3792)

Park Jong-woo (Patent Attorney Shin-dong et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 94Na2052 dated December 15, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney of the applicant are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

If a technical mark, etc. is included in the component of a trademark, such part shall not be deemed an essential part of the trademark because it has no distinguishability of other products, and therefore, in determining the similarity of trademarks, observation shall be made only in preparation for the remainder except for those parts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Hu1886, Mar. 3, 1995; 95Hu255, Jul. 25, 1995).

However, in comparison with the cited trademark (Registration No. 19274) registered by earlier application of this case (the original trademark) according to the records, the original trademark is marked as a larger font by putting a little 'Hi-Tocode' on the upper side of the trademark, focusing on the crossing line, and is marked as a small letter "VDF book" under the above crossing line, but it is not combined to the extent that its constituent parts cannot be separated, so it is highly likely that the above cited trademark may be abbreviationd by 'Hi-To book', and it is difficult to use the above cited trademark as an 'Hh' and 'To,' because the cited trademark can be used as a high-quality and high-quality of the designated goods, it can be seen as being combined with the above 'HH' and 'TO', so it is difficult to see that there is a high-quality contact among the designated goods, such as 'HHh' and 'TO', and it can be seen as a high-quality contact with the designated goods.

Although the court below is inadequate in its reasoning, it is proper to determine that the original condition refusing an application for trademark registration of the original trademark in the above purport is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles in determining the similarity of a trademark as pointed out in the theory of a lawsuit. The precedents of party members cited in the theory of a lawsuit are different from this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke it as it is inappropriate. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Whether the designated goods are identical or similar should be determined in accordance with the general transaction norms in consideration of the actual conditions of the transaction, such as quality, shape, use and production, sales sector, scope of consumers, etc., which are the characteristics of the goods themselves (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Hu425, May 24, 1994; 95Hu200, Jun. 9, 1995; 95Hu1586, Apr. 26, 1996).

According to the records, the designated goods of this original trademark are classified into the category 39's safety light, security light, and security light of the classification of goods. The designated goods of the cited trademark are 10 goods of the category 39's electronic typology, electric air conditioning, TV washing machine, television receiver, lusium, lusium, electronic sturger, electronic calculator, telephone, tele tape recorder, tape tape recorder, tape camera, etc., and the designated goods of both trademarks belong to the same category in the classification of goods. In light of the above legal principles, the designated goods of both trademarks are not similar as a whole. However, considering the similarity of TV receiver among the designated goods of the cited trademark of this original trademark, the quality and shape of the two goods are different from those of the designated goods of the cited trademark of this original trademark, but in terms of use, it can be viewed that there is a mutual relation between the designated goods of this case and the goods of this case, which are considerably similar to the designated goods of this case, and therefore, there is no concern for consumers to use the two goods.

The court below's decision that the designated goods of both trademarks constitute similar goods without distinguishing the designated goods of the cited trademark is inappropriate. However, the conclusion that the registration of the original trademark should be refused under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act because the designated goods of both trademarks are similar to the designated goods of the cited trademark, is justifiable, and therefore, it is not reasonable to hold any other argument.

3. Therefore, 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.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)