(a) Whether the trademark "PERFOR pumps" and the cited trademark "PERPRMA spread" consisting of the Hague, etc. as the designated goods, consisting of the trademark "PERN pumps" and the chemical equipment accumulated, etc. as the designated goods (affirmative);

(b) Where a well-known trademark applied for registration is similar to the pre-registered trademark having grounds for revocation due to non-use, and is used on goods similar to the designated goods (negative);

A. Whether a trademark is similar or similar to a trademark is determined on the basis of whether it is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the product if the compared two trademarks are to be used in the same or similar product. In that case, the impression, memory, connection, etc. given to traders by the appearance, concept, name, etc. of the trademark should be examined as a whole. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, it is similar to the essential part so that confusion can be easily made in the overall observation. The same or similarity between the designated goods shall be determined in accordance with the trade norms, taking into account their quality, use, shape, and transaction circumstances. The trademark "PERFRM spread" and the "PERPRM spread" of the cited trademark are similar in its name, and the "arche or any similar trademark" of the cited trademark appears to be weak, and it is similar or similar to those of the cited trademark, and in light of its appearance and appearance, it is hard to see that the last part of the cited trademark and the outer part of the cited trademark "I" of the cited trademark are identical or similar trademark.

B. If the trademark is similar to the cited trademark of another person, which is the trademark of another person based on the earlier application, and is used for goods similar to the designated goods of the said trademark, the trademark cannot be registered unless the cited trademark is revoked by a trial or judgment, even if the trademark is widely known domestically and overseas, and there is a ground for revocation due to the non-use of

(a)Article 9(1)7(b) of the former Trademark Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Hu134 delivered on March 11, 1986 (Gong1986,640) 86Hu152 delivered on August 25, 1987 (Gong1987,1526) (Gong1526). Supreme Court Decision 86Hu147 delivered on January 20, 1987 (Gong1987,371) 83Hu45 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Gong1983,1489)

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Hun-won 500 dated January 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The similarity or similarity of a trademark is determined by whether it is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of a product if the two trademarks compared are used in the same or similar product. In such a case, the overall increase, memory, and smoke of the trademark used in the product using its appearance, concept, name, etc. should be examined. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, it would be a similar trademark that would be easily confused in the overall observation (see Supreme Court Decision 85Hu134, Mar. 11, 1986). The same or similarity between the designated product is to be determined in accordance with the trade norms in consideration of its quality, use, shape, and circumstances of the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu152, Aug. 25, 1987). According to the original decision, the court below's determination that the trademark used in the product is likely to cause confusion as to the product's origin, and the part of the trademark used in the product's appearance and the part of the trademark's cited "prop," which appears to be cited."

In addition, even if this case's trademark is widely known domestically and overseas, it is not possible to obtain registration if it is used for goods similar to the cited trademark of another person, which is the trademark of another person, and similar to the designated goods of the cited trademark, as seen earlier (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu147, Jan. 20, 1987). Moreover, even if there is a reason for revocation which is used for goods identical or similar to the cited trademark, unless it is revoked by a trial or judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 83Hu45, Sept. 13, 1983). The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)