The case holding that even if designated goods are used for the same or similar designated goods, they do not constitute a trademark similar to one another because ordinary consumers or traders are not likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the goods, even if they are used for the same or similar designated goods due to different names and in the name of the name of the name of the other party, they do not constitute a trademark similar to one another, inasmuch as they are used for the same or similar designated goods.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Song Man-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2008Heo8044 Decided November 5, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined on the basis of whether there is a concern for ordinary consumers or traders to confuse the source of goods by comprehensively observing, objectively and objectively, and objectively, the impression, memory, and ties that are given to ordinary consumers or traders by means of its external appearance, name, and concept, etc. Furthermore, a trademark combining letters and letters shall always be named, concept, not by the name or shape of the entire constituent part, but can be briefly named, and conceptualized by the essential part of the constituent part. However, even though observing each constituent part separately only in a natural case where it is natural and social norms to separately observe it, it is natural or should be judged as to whether it is similar in principle by observing it as a whole (see Supreme Court Decision 94Hu647 delivered on January 12, 195).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the applied trademark of this case (No. 207-35043) is an identical or similar trademark shock with the designated goods as a sports product such as golf, live, bowling, and roller, and the registered trademark 1 (registration number No. 64631) consists of clothes and shoes, such as lives, sports lives, golf lives, etc., and the registered trademark 2 (registration number No. 6591) is an identical or similar part of the designated goods as a trademark shock, and thus, it is often deemed that the designated goods are identical or similar to the designated goods of this case, and that the designated goods are not identical or similar to the designated goods of this case, and thus, it is often deemed that the designated goods are identical or similar to the designated goods of this case, namely, a combination of two or more so-called "registered goods," namely, small-scale, so that each of the designated goods can be seen as identical or similar to the designated goods of this case.

Therefore, in principle, the trademark of this case and the pre-registered trademark of this case shall be observed as a whole, and the two trademarks are all common in their concepts, but their names are different, and even if they are used in the same or similar designated goods as well as different names, the general consumers or traders do not cause confusion as to the origin of goods. Thus, both trademarks shall not be deemed similar trademarks.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the trademark of this case is not similar to the prior registered trademark, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of distinctiveness or similarity of trademark as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

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 Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)