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

The application trademark "FNCY" and the cited trademark "FNCY" are different from each other in their appearance, but when examining the title, since the original Korean characters of the applicant trademark and the cited trademark "pande market or pande market" are "pande market" and the cited trademark "pande market or pande market", if the cited trademark is marked as "pande market", the cited trademark is merely a difference between the two trademarks that the word "pande market" and the word "pande market" and it is similar to both trademarks, so if the two trademarks are used in the same or similar goods, they may cause confusion and confusion as to the origin of goods.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Pacific Chemical Corporation

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 88Na421 dated June 30, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4 of the applicant are examined.

In determining whether a trademark falls under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, the issue of whether two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are similar shall be determined based on whether there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods in light of the common sense of transaction by observing objectively, comprehensively and objectively in terms of appearance, name, and concept.

However, when comparing the cited trademark which is the original trademark which was applied on May 20, 1987 and the trademark of another person which is the trademark of another person based on earlier application, the cited trademark is different from each other because the cited trademark is a character trademark which is composed of Korean and English. However, considering the title of the original trademark and the cited trademark, the original Korean style in English among the original trademark and the cited trademark is "panty time" and "panpanty market or panpanty market". Thus, if the cited trademark is indicated as "panpanty market", the cited trademark has a difference between the two trademarks, and as a whole, the two trademarks are similar in terms of both trademarks, and as a whole, if the two trademarks are used as identical or similar goods, it is likely to mislead general consumers or consumers as to the origin of goods.

Although the original trial decision is somewhat insufficient at the time of reasoning, since the original trademark is judged similar to the cited trademark, the conclusion is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the theory of the original trial decision and the legal principles as to Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the original trial decision, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the rules of experience, and there is no reason

The Supreme Court Decisions 87Hu134 delivered on February 23, 1988; 86Hu72,73 delivered on November 10, 1987; 86Hu166 delivered on June 23, 1987; 85Hu40,41 delivered on October 28, 1986; 81Hu74 delivered on December 27, 1983, which cited the theory as a precedent, are all different cases, and it is not appropriate to rely on this case.

In addition, the court below did not find that the original trademark was similar to the cited trademark for which it was recognized as similar to the cited trademark for which the original trademark was applied, and did not determine as similar to the other person's registered trademark by earlier application, and thus, the theory of criticisming the original trademark is not acceptable on the premise that the original trademark was

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)