Where a trademark contains a common name of designated goods or a part of a technical mark among the trademarks, the criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

Even if there are similar parts between trademarks, the part constituting the essential part shall be deemed not to be a similar trademark unless it is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods in the transaction when comprehensively observing that part. If the elements of a trademark include the part indicated in the ordinary name or technical mark of the designated goods in question, etc., such part shall not be deemed to be an essential part of the other goods because it has no distinctive character of the other goods, and therefore, it shall be reasonable to observe only the remainder except

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Young-chul and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Attorney Song-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na1739 Dated January 28, 1995

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office by destroying the original trial decision.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, with respect to the similarity between the applied trademark in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") and the cited trademark (registration No. 218143), both trademarks are different from the appearance of the cited trademark. However, in the title, the cited trademark is referred to as "ampia", and the original trademark can be referred to as "ampia" or "ampia" in light of the circumstances of the transaction society that wants to be promptly and promptly settled, and judged that the overall trademark is similar to the cited trademark in cases where the original trademark is referred to as "ampia" or "amba".

2. However, even though there are similar parts between trademarks, if the parts which form the essential part are different and they are not likely to cause misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of goods in trade, they shall be deemed not to be similar trademarks. If the parts indicated in the ordinary name of the designated goods in question or technical marks, etc. are included in the elements of trademark, such parts shall not be deemed to be an essential part of trademark because they have no distinctive character of the goods in question, so in determining the similarity of trademarks, it shall be reasonable to observe only the remainder (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Hu1254 delivered on Jan. 28, 1994; 93Hu1094 delivered on Feb. 8, 1994; 93Hu1919 delivered on Aug. 12, 194).

According to the records, even if the part of this original trademark "," among the cited trademarks, is similar in the name of the cited trademark, the part has the meaning of "water, including 2/3 (Ga) (Ga) 3 (Ga) (Ga) in the nearest raw water which occupies 2/3 in the human body," and it can be directly identified in the meaning of "nick, water purifier, etc. with the performance of filtering or purifying almost the same water as the human body life," and thus, it cannot be deemed as indicating in a common way the quality or efficacy of designated goods, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as an essential part because it cannot be deemed as distinctive character, and if the remaining part except this part is in comparison with the cited trademark, the appearance, concept, name, and so, it cannot be seen as a significant difference in the appearance, meaning, and so the two trademarks cannot be seen as similar.

Nevertheless, there is an error of law that affected the decision of the court by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks in the original decision, which is deemed as similar to the two trademarks.

3. Therefore, the original decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)