Whether the application trademark "COMAX" and the cited trademark "KONX" are similar

In comparison with the applied trademark “COMAX” and the cited trademark “KSX”, the appearance and concept of the applied trademark are below, but the cited trademark is referred to as “cos”, and it is extremely similar so that the cited trademark is referred to as “cos”. In addition, all of the designated goods of the applied trademark are in the group of chemical products and chemical products of Category 10 of the same kind of goods and the cited trademark, the designated goods of the cited trademark are in the group of chemical products of Category 10 of the same goods, and the transaction and sale are used as the basic materials or treatment agents of the same kind of goods, and the transaction and sale are handled mainly by the general chemical, and the consumers are considered to belong to the same kind of goods in light of their nature and use. Therefore, if the two trademarks are used for the same kind of designated goods, there is a concern that general consumers or traders may confuse the origin of goods.

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

Supreme Court Decision 86Hu132 Decided February 24, 1987 (Gong1987,541) 88Hu80 Decided March 28, 1989, Supreme Court Decision 92Hu100 Decided August 14, 1992 (Gong192,2675)

Daegu District Court Decision 201Na14488 delivered on August 1, 2011

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Decision 1607 Dated February 27, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the trademark "COMX" applied for the Kabbbs as the rubber, synthetic rubber, and plastic charging agents as the designated goods in category 10 of the product classification, and the cited trademark "KONX" as the designated goods in category 10 of the product classification, and its appearance and concept are "cos", and the quoted trademark is so similar that it is extremely similar to the cited trademark as the cited trademark in category 10 of the product classification as the designated goods in category 10 of the product classification, and since it is extremely similar to the cited trademark as the cited trademark in category 10 of the product classification as the designated goods in category 10 of the product classification as well as the 10th chemical substance in category 10 of the product classification as well as the 10th chemical substance in category 10 of the product classification as the goods in category 10 of the product classification as the goods in category 97 of the former Trademark Act, and thus, it is not possible to mislead consumers into the same kind of product or the same product.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks and goods, incomplete hearing, violation of the rules of evidence, and lack of reasoning as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

The precedents cited by the theory of the lawsuit are different from those cited by the case, and thus, it cannot be appropriate for this case.

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 on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)