A. Whether “the similarity” and “the cited trademark” are “the similarity” (affirmative)

(b) Whether gas boiler, automatic gas breaker, breader, ice-making machinery and tools, ice-making machinery and tools, oil refining apparatus, etc., designated goods of the cited trademark, which are the designated goods of the applied trademark, are similar to the leading engine, diesel engine, compressed air apparatus, transformerr, etc. (affirmative);

(a) “The cited trademark” is a trademark identical or similar to the cited trademark, as it is difficult to see that the appearance, name, or title is not similar or a new concept is formed in the front of “the cited trademark”.

B. The designated goods of the applied trademark are gas boiler, automatic gas breaker, baker, ice-making machine, ice-making machine, ice-making machine, oil refining machine, etc. The designated goods of the cited trademark are as follows: (a) in the case where the designated goods of the cited trademark are air-conditioning engines, diesel engines, compressing air apparatus, and shocker, etc., although the designated goods are not the same use; (b) it is not easy for general consumers to easily distinguish the quality and shape of the goods in light of the common sense of transaction as machinery; and (c) if a trademark similar to the cited trademark is used as the designated goods of the applied trademark, it is likely to cause mistake and confusion as to the source of goods.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu199 decided Jun. 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1583), 89Hu1325 decided Sep. 28, 1990 (Gong1990, 2164), 90Hu2034 decided Jun. 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1929)

Dongyang Cement Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 1124 decided October 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the records, the court below's decision that the original trademark " " is identical or similar to the cited trademark ", and the designated goods are identical or similar to the original trademark "," and if the original trademark is used for the designated goods, the ordinary consumer or the trader may cause mistake or confusion between the cited trademark and the source of goods.

2. The similarity of trademarks is the same as a theory of lawsuit, which means that the trademark should be identified by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used in the same or similar goods, and whether there is a possibility of mistake or confusion among the goods. However, in comparison with this, the trademark of this case is similar to the cited trademark, and it is difficult to see that the cited trademark "in the front of the trademark "including the part "" and its appearance, name, and new concept are not similar."

3. In addition, the same and similarity of designated goods shall be determined in accordance with the transaction norms, taking into account their quality, use, form, and actual condition of transactions, and it is not possible to readily conclude that goods of the same kind or similar kind are identical or similar to those of the trademark in the trademark registration table under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act. However, the designated goods of the original trademark are gas boiler, automatic gas blocking devices, control devices, manufacturing machinery and tools, ice manufacturing machinery and tools, ice manufacturing machinery and fluids, etc., and the designated goods of the cited trademark are similar to those of the original trademark, and the use of the cited trademark cannot be seen as identical. However, since all the designated goods are machinery and tools, their quality and shape can be easily distinguishable, and since the use of a trademark similar to the cited trademark is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the designated goods of the original trademark, the designated goods of the original trademark and the cited trademark should be deemed similar.

4. Therefore, there is no reason to argue in the opposite position.

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 Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)