[Attachment] Whether a trademark is similar to a trademark for personal use (negative)

[Attachment of the appearance of a trademark] (personal trademark) is not similar, and even when comparing the title, the applied trademark is divided into two parts with “OTO” and “KERN”. Thus, there is no possibility for ordinary consumers or traders to refer only to “belling”, “bellto,” or “beat” as an abbreviation, but the cited trademark, “OTO, OTO” or “beatto,” which is the cited trademark, consists of three parts, and it is not similar to the name of “beat” which is the abbreviation of the applied trademark composed of two parts. Thus, there is no concern for ordinary consumers or customers to mislead or confuse the place of goods.

Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act

Attorney Kim Tae-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office (Korean Intellectual Property Office), February 29, 1992, 90, 1581

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below affirmed the decision of the court below that since the original trademark is composed of English persons (application trademark) and "OTO" means a long name, and since the original trademark is composed of two parts, the original trademark is composed of "OTO" and "KERN". Thus, if two parts are composed of two parts, the original trademark may be considered simply as a single part in a general trade society that requires simple and rapid speed, as in today's case where one of them can be recognized as an "OTO" or a trader, [in a case where the original trademark is recognized as an "OTO" or a trader, the similarity of the name can not be excluded, and if both trademarks are used as the designated goods of the same kind, it is likely to mislead or confuse general consumers or traders, and thus, the original trademark is justified in the decision of rejection under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 3, 1990).

However, compared to the appearance of the original trademark and the cited trademark, it cannot be seen as similar, and even if compared with the two words, the original trademark is separated from the two words of “OTO” and “KERN”, and there is no possibility for ordinary consumers or traders to refer only to “belling”, “bellto”, or “bell” as an abbreviation, but it is not similar to the name of “bellto”, which is the abbreviation of the original trademark composed of three sound, so there is no concern for general consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the place of goods.

In the end, the original trial decision is an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the criteria for distinguishing a trademark similarity, and there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, we reverse and remand the original adjudication. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)