Comparison between the “REVLON” and the “REV-ON” of the applied trademark

The "REVLON" and the "REVON" of the applied trademark are identical to the English name "REVLN" and the "REVON" of the already registered cited trademark are likely to cause confusions with three persons under the name of the trademark in English and are used on the designated goods of the same kind because the arrangement of letters composed in appearance is similar to those of the designated goods, it may cause confusions or confusions with the place of the goods. Thus, the "REVLON" of the applied trademark cannot be registered as the trademark.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Necephar No. Hayphar No. Haar

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 11118, Oct. 29, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the trademark of this case, which was applied by the claimant of this case, is English, "REVLN" and registered on September 15, 1960, and its term has been renewed on September 3, 1980 and its term has been renewed on September 3, 1980, and the trademark of this case, "REVON" and the trademark of this case may be confused with the trademark of this case, and if it is used on the designated goods of this case as the same kind of product because the arrangement of letters composed of them is similar, it may cause confusion and confusion to the general trader or customer. Accordingly, the court below's above decision is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trademark's theory as to the existence or absence, incomplete deliberation, or omission of judgment, and it cannot be found that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of legal principles as to the trademark's theory.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)