Whether the applicant’s trademark is similar to the applicant’s trade name in English (affirmative), and whether the applicant’s trademark is similar to that applied for a combined trademark of the registered trademark (negative)

In this part of the trademark "KREA STR CHCR CHCR CHD.CO. LTPP." "KREA" is an English version in Korea's country, and it is nothing more than a company's business type and thus has no distinguishability as a mark, so the essential part of this part of the trademark is "SUTRAR". Thus, if two trademarks are used in the same or similar designated goods with identical or similar names or concepts of another person's trademark as a registered trademark by an earlier application, it is likely to cause confusion among ordinary consumers or consumers as to the origin of goods. Thus, since the trademark is not indicated in English as the trade name used for a long time by the applicant, and even if the applicant has applied for registration as a combined trademark similar to those already registered, it is not possible to register the original trademark.

Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

Attorney Jeong Tae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant and one other

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 89Na615 Dated February 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant's agent are examined.

The lower court determined that, in light of the comparison between the applicant’s trademark and the other person’s registered trademark and the cited trademark based on LTPP and earlier application, “KOREA” in this original trademark is the English name of the Republic of Korea and is merely an undistinctived mark as a trademark, and thus, the essential part of this original trademark is “SOLAR” inasmuch as the trademark has no distinctiveness as it is merely an undistinctived mark of the company’s business type. Thus, the essential part of this original trademark is identical or similar to the cited trademark, thereby likely to cause mistake or confusion to ordinary consumers or consumers as to the origin of goods, and thus, this original trademark cannot be registered as a similar trademark under Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

According to relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act or misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 9 (1) of the Trademark Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous. In addition, the conclusion is not different because the name the applicant used for a long time is indicated in English, and the trademark is applied for as a combined trademark of similar trademarks already registered. In the end, there is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)