Whether the trademark is similar to the trademark "MAGIC"

The patent applied for trademark is a combination of the English characters “orland land “MAIC” in which figures and diagrams are combined, and the shape of the cited trademark is different from that of the cited trademark, but the figures and characters are separated from appearance, and the applied trademark can be called or recognized only by “MAGIC” which is clearly and clearly marked as not being natural if the parts of each constituent are separated and observed, and is similar to the cited trademark, so if both trademarks are used for the designated goods similar to those of the cited trademark, it may cause general consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the source of goods.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Attorney Gangnam-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na2194 Dated January 27, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

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

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below affirmed the original decision that the trademark in this case is similar to the cited trademark, and thus, if the trademark in this case is used on the designated goods similar to the identical trademark in this case, it could cause confusion between ordinary consumers or traders as to the source of goods, and thus, the original decision that rejected the registration of the original trademark by applying the provisions of Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act is justified, on the ground that the trademark in this case is likely to cause confusion as to the source of goods, and thus, it is likely that the trademark in this case may cause confusion as to the source of goods by applying the provisions of Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

In light of the records, the above recognition judgment of the court below is recognized as legitimate, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks in the original adjudication. There is no ground for all arguments.

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)