(a) Where letters which are the essential parts of the trademark are similar, whether the trademark is a similar trademark;

B. Whether the cited trademark is similar to the original trademark

A. The similarity of trademarks is a method to objectively, comprehensively, and differently observe the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used in the same or similar goods, and to determine if there is a possibility of mistake or confusion among the goods in a transaction. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, if the text constituting the essential part is similar and it is easily confused in its name and concept.

B. In light of the cited trademark and the original trademark, it seems that the original trademark is called, abbreviated, and recognizable as a "flaser for general trade", and the trademark is similar to the cited trademark and its name, concept, and the trademark is also identical or similar to the goods classification No. 43 as compared to the goods designated by the above two trademarks, and thus, if the above trademarks are used in the same or similar manner, it is likely to mislead and confuse general consumers or consumers as to the source of goods. Therefore, the rejection of the registration of the original trademark is legitimate.

Article 9 subparag. 10 of the Trademark Act, Article 0 subparag. 11 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Hu41 Decided September 29, 1970, 81Hu47 Decided December 27, 1983, and 85Hu134 Decided March 11, 1986.B. Supreme Court Decision 86Hu128 Decided February 24, 1987

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 85 Section 723 dated July 25, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The similarity of a trademark is a method to objectively, collectively and objectively observe the appearance, name, concept, etc. of two trademarks used for the same or similar goods, and to determine whether there is a possibility of mistake or confusion among the goods in the transaction at any time. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, if the text constituting the essential part is similar and it is likely to be confused in its name or concept (see Supreme Court Decision 85Hu134 delivered on March 11, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 84Hu70 delivered on December 26, 1984).

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that when considering the cited trademark in this case and the original trademark in this case, it is difficult to separate the words constituting the original trademark in the whole indivisible relationship, and it is also difficult to see that it is a simple distinctive part from general commercial transactions, unless there are special circumstances to see that it is common sense to see that it is called or abbreviationd, and that it is possible to recognize it, and it is not similar to the cited trademark, its name, and concept, and even if it is compared with the designated goods in the above two trademarks, it is likely to mislead and confuse general consumers or consumers with the source of goods if the above trademarks are used as the same or similar kind of goods as the designated goods in the above two trademarks.

The decision of the court below shows that the characteristic of the above two trademarks are located in the "Fra" and even if the trademark registration of the cited trademark is no special distinction, unless the trademark registration of the cited trademark is invalidated by the "Fra", it does not necessarily mean that the special distinction cannot be granted even if the trademark registration of the cited trademark is attached to another name on the end of the relevant piece. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a misunderstanding of legal principles or a lack of reasoning, a omission of judgment, or an incomplete hearing.

또 인용상표가 있는데도 팻숀프라자가 등록되어 있다 하더라도 이는 두상표가 그 지정상품을 달리하고 있는 경우여서 지정상품을 같이하고 있는 이 사건에 적용할 것이 아니다. 주장은 모두 이유없다.

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.

Justices Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)