Whether the application trademark “BARIE” and the cited trademark “proption” are similar (affirmative)

In comparison with the cited trademark “BARIE”, the trademark applied for the trademark is similar to the cited trademark “BARE,” because the trademark applied for the trademark is similar to the trademark “BARIE,” and is likely to cause misconceptions and confusions about the source of goods to general consumers in the event it is referred to as “ba”, “fa” or “fa” in addition to “fari” to the general public, and it is similar to the cited trademark.

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

Liitwegian Patent Attorney Ba-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1495 Dated January 30, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether or not there is a concern for ordinary consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of goods in light of the common sense of trade by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the external appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used in the same or similar goods. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, the name and concept are similar so that ordinary consumers may be mistaken or confused (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Hu1093, Mar. 27, 1991; 90Hu1093, Sept. 24, 1991; 91Hu608, Sept. 24, 1991).

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below maintained the original decision rejecting the application for the registration of the original trademark on the ground that the original trademark "BARIE," which is the original trademark, is similar to the cited trademark "", and that the original trademark "BARIE," in its appearance and concept, could not be referred to as "Ba", "Ba" and "Ba" in its name to the general public, and that if the original trademark is referred to as "Ba" or "Ba", the trademark is similar to the name of the cited trademark, and is likely to cause mistake and confusion in the place of goods to the general consumers, and thus, it is similar to the cited trademark, and thus, the original decision rejecting the application for registration of the original trademark was maintained.

In light of the records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or omission of judgment, and there is no reason to discuss it.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)