Whether the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark (2) (affirmative)

The applied trademark consists of the national language and has no specific concept. The cited trademark(2) is composed of English and recognized as a "criminal", and the appearance and concept are different or different from each other, the cited trademark(2) is referred to as "other" or "other", and the cited trademark is referred to as "the other" or "the other", and if the cited trademark(2) is referred to as "the other difficulties", it is the same as the first two sound, and if the cited trademark(2) is referred to as "the other difficulties", there is a little difference between the last sound and "the other difficulties", and thus, if it is referred as a whole, it is similar, and if two trademarks are used for the same kind of designated goods, it is likely to cause mistake and confusion as to the source of goods.

Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

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

Attorney Ba-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na658 dated December 20, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Whether or not a trademark is similar should be determined by whether or not there is a concern for ordinary consumers or traders in trade to mistake or cause confusion as to the origin of the product in any one of the two trademarks, which are used in the same or similar goods, by objectively, comprehensively, and systematically observing the appearance, name, and concept of the two trademarks, which are used in the same or similar goods.

According to the records, the original trademark is a character trademark composed of the two kinds of goods, which is composed of the two trademarks: (a) the shape of which is composed of the two kinds of goods; (b) the appearance of which is composed of two kinds of goods; and (c) the origin of which is applied on February 29, 198. The cited trademark (b) is a character trademark consisting of the two kinds of goods; (c) the trademark is applied on January 26, 198 with the oral string and 39 kinds of goods; and (d) the cited trademark (2) which is applied on January 26, 198 with the cited trademark applied on January 1, 198. The original trademark is composed of two kinds of goods; (b) the original trademark is composed of English characters; and (c) the cited trademark is composed of two parts of goods with no specific concept; and (d) the trademark is referred to as "the other part" or "the other part"; and (b) the original trademark is referred to as "the other part of the goods with the same meaning as "the other part".

Although the original adjudication is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, the conclusion that the original trademark and the cited trademark (2) which was applied before the original trademark are similar trademarks is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)