logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1985. 12. 10. 선고 85후69 판결
[등록상표무효][공1986.2.1.(769),243]
Main Issues

Under the last head figure, whether or not the trademark in English with “JRDACHE” is similar to the trademark on which the word “ma” is indicated by a combination trademark of the cross-routers and letters, or a trademark on which the combination trademark and the mast figure are indicated as a whole.

Summary of Judgment

Under the last head figure, the combined trademark of the diagrams and letters written by tamping the English name of JORDACHE is different from the trademark indicated by the words in the word, or in all respects from the trademark indicated by the word in the word or in combination with the trademark indicating the whole word, and its appearance, name, and concept, and thus, is not similar.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 9(1) of the Trademark Act

claimant-Appellant

Attorney Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Appellant-Appellee

Attorney Lee Dong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Judgment of the court below

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 110 decided May 24, 1985

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by the claimant are examined.

According to the original decision, the court below found the above trademark as a combination of No. 27 and No. 1 and No. 2, and the above trademark as a combination of No. 2 and No. 1 and No. 7 (No. 1 omitted), and held that the trademark as a combination of No. 1 and No. 2 were identical to the above trademark No. 9, and thus, the trademark as a combination of No. 1 and No. 3 were identical to the above trademark No. 6 (registration No. 5 omitted), and the trademark as a combination of No. 7 (No. 7 omitted) and No. 8 (No. 87) are identical to the above trademark No. 1 and thus, the court below's determination that the above trademark No. 2 and No. 9 were identical to the above trademark No. 1 and thus, the above trademark No. 4 were identical to the above trademark No. 3 and the trademark No. 9 were identical to the above trademark No.

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

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)

arrow