[1] Whether the trademark "ZTEC", "AZT", and "AZT" are similar (affirmative)

[2] Whether insects, shocking agents, sterilization agents, etc., antiviral viruss, medicines for mid-tour boundary, circulars for circular agencies, etc. are similar products (affirmative)

[1] In comparison with the similaritys of the AZEC, the cited trademark (1) registered by the earlier application, the AZT, and the cited trademark (2) registered by the earlier application, the cited trademark in the title refers to the Azex, and all of the cited trademarks are referred to as the "Azex", and the cited trademarks in the two preceding parts, which are recognized as important in the three preceding parts, are equally identical, and the two preceding parts, which are known as the original trademark in the three preceding parts, are extremely similar in the whole, and the original trademark consists of the cited trademark in the preceding parts, and the cited trademark consists of the whole part (1). Since both trademarks are externally similar to each other, even if they are not similar in the concept, they are similar to those of ordinary consumers or traders, in terms of the whole, objective, objective, and e.g., the cited trademark.

[2] Insecticides, shocking agents, disinfection agents, welves, welves, parasibing agents, anti-viral viruss, anti-viral viruss, which are the designated goods of the cited trademarks, and anti-viral viruss, mid-tour boundary medicines, identification medicines for terminal organs, cirrative medicines, and out-of-door drugs, which are all designated goods of the main trademark, are all included in Category 4 (pharmaceuticals) of Chapter 10 in the classification of goods under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, and their quality and shape cannot be easily distinguished for ordinary consumers. In light of the common sense of transaction, they are the same or similar goods as defined in Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu644 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3404 delivered on November 10, 1995) Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1005 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3917), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1272 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 552), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1432 delivered on March 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1267)

Cambodia (Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94Na1543 dated August 26, 1995

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the record, if the similarity between the trademark applied in this case (hereinafter referred to as the original trademark) and the cited trademark (1) (registration No. 184744) registered by the earlier application and the cited trademark (registration No. 18474) (registration No. 18474) (registration No. 1845) are compared with the similarity of the trademark applied in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "AZEC") and the cited trademark (registration No. 18474) (registration No. 1845), the original trademark is referred to as the "Az", and all of the cited trademarks are referred to as the "Az" and the cited trademarks are referred to as the "BT", and the cited trademarks are equally identical to the two preceding parts which are recognized as important as the "Az", and the first part of the original trademark is extremely similar to each other, and as such, even if they are similar from the concept of the original trademark, they are not similar to those of the general consumers or the general consumers.

Furthermore, considering whether the two trademarks are similar to the designated goods of the trademark of the principal source as a result of examination of whether they are similar to the designated goods of the trademark of the principal source, such as insects, shock agents, sterilization agents, saccines, beginnings, antiviral viruss as designated goods of the cited trademark, anti-viral viruss as used for mid-tour boundary, mid-tour boundary medicines, terminal identification medicines, identification equipment medicines, circular agency medicines, clibral administration medicines, and extra-use medicines, etc. are all included in Category 4 (pharmaceuticals) of Chapter 10 from the classification of goods under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, and their quality and shape can not be easily distinguished among general consumers. In light of the common sense of transaction, it is the same or similar goods as defined in Article 7

Therefore, the original trademark and the cited trademark are similar to the trademark, and if both trademarks are used together in the same manner as the designated goods, the decision of the court below which held that the original trademark refusal of registration of the original trademark under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act is justifiable in light of the above purport, and thus, the decision of the court below is just in light of the legal principles as to the determination of similarity of the trademark or the designated goods such as the theory of lawsuit, the incomplete deliberation, the violation of the rules of evidence, and the lack of reasons.

All arguments that conflict with the above recognition judgment are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)