[1] Whether the trademark "Otilily" and the trademark "O" are similar to the trademark "O", "OEARY" (affirmative)

[2] The validity of an examiner's decision to publish an application

[1] The main trademark and the cited trademark are different from each other, and they have the meaning of "the original trademark", "the original trademark is slick, slick, and executive secretary" as well as "the original trademark", but they are not compared with the cited trademark. However, in the name of "the original trademark", and the quoted trademark is called "the original trademark" as "the original trademark" as "the original trademark", and in such a case, the original trademark is added "the second Section" as "the original trademark" as "the second Section, and the third Section," and both trademarks are extremely similar as a whole, so both trademarks are similar if they observe the two trademarks as a whole, objective, and shock from the perspective of ordinary consumers.

[2] The term "public notice of an examiner" means that an examiner institutionalizes to seek cooperation in examination by publishing the contents of the application to the public and allowing the examiner to file an objection, where the examiner could not find any grounds for rejection as a result of the examiner's examination of the contents of the application, or where the grounds for rejection are overcome by submitting a written opinion or an amendment, and any person may file an objection within 30 days (Article 25 of the Trademark Act) and the examiner may make an ex officio a ruling of rejection where the examiner finds grounds for rejection after publication of the application (Article 28 of the Trademark

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 23 (1), 24, 25, and 28 (1) of the Trademark Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu64 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2272), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu644 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3404), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1005 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3917), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1272 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 552), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1616 delivered on June 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2189)

올리스 베. 붸 (소송대리인 변리사 강영수)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94Na1848 dated November 29, 1995

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Point 1

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") is registered in a foreign country and it is not necessary to permit the registration in our country because the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") is registered in the foreign country, and it is similar to the original trademark of this case and the quoted trademark (1 omitted) registered in the earlier application (2 omitted) in comparison with the original trademark of this case and the original trademark of this case (2 omitted) and the cited trademark of this case (2 omitted). The original trademark and the cited trademark of this case are different from their appearance, and even in terms of the concept, the original trademark of this case are similar to those of the original trademark of this case, and are similar to those of the original trademark of this case, which are similar to those of the goods of this case, which are referred to as "the trademark of this case" of this case, and are referred to as "the trademark of this case, which is referred to as "the original trademark of this case" of this case, and are referred to as "the trademark of this case" of this case.

According to records and relevant laws, the above recognition and determination by the court below is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks, or in the incomplete hearing.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Point 2

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that an examiner's decision on the application publication cannot be changed without any clear other evidence in order to maintain consistency in the administrative act and ensure the stability of the applicant's legal status. Thus, a trademark for which the application publication was made should be a registration ruling unless there are special circumstances.

On the other hand, an examiner's notice of application refers to a case where the examiner could not find any grounds for rejection as a result of an examiner's examination of the contents of application, or where the grounds for rejection are overcome by submitting a written opinion or an amendment, the examiner's notice of application is institutionalized so that he/she may request cooperation in examination by publishing the contents of application to the general public and file an objection. Any person may file an objection within 30 days (Article 25 of the Trademark Act). In addition, if an examiner finds grounds for rejection after the public notice of application, he/she may make an ex officio ruling of rejection (Article 28 of the Trademark Act). In light of the purpose of the above public notice system of application or the legal provisions, the above grounds for appeal cannot be

The court below erred in failing to decide on the above assertion by the applicant, but so long as such illegality cannot affect the result of the trial decision of this case, it cannot be accepted the allegation of omission of judgment of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)