A. Whether it can be determined that a product falls under the same kind as that of the product oil table under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, and whether the product is identical or similar to the designated product (negative), and the standard of determining the same or similar product

(b) The case holding that it cannot be deemed as identical or similar goods even if it belongs to Class 39 of the attached Table 39, such as inducement and voltage time, radar machinery and tools, self-finding apparatus, and rubber products for electricity saving, which are the designated goods of the applied trademark, and the cited trademark, which are the designated goods of the applied trademark;

A. Under the former Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, the product oil list is classified for the convenience of trademark registration and does not have the same kind of goods, so it cannot be readily concluded that it belongs to the same kind of goods as the product oil list. The same and similar kind of designated goods should be determined in accordance with the transactional norms by taking into account the quality, shape, use, the circumstances of transaction, etc., which are the characteristics of the goods.

(b) The case holding that, each of the designated goods of the cited trademarks registered prior against the fact that they belong to telecommunications equipment and parts listed in the item of subparagraph 9 of the attached Table 39, among telecommunications equipment and appliances listed in the item of subparagraph 7 of the attached Table 39 of the applied trademark, shall fall under the leading voltage line, circuit light, sound area, radio wave measuring apparatus, electric power cable, electric power cable, telephone, telephone, radar, apparatus, self-finding apparatus, rubber products for electrical saving, but they fall under the category 39 of the attached Table, but the item and items are different from the item of the goods, and the Lao tape, which is the designated goods of the applied trademark, is the secondary part of the VTR, in which the image and voice are recorded, and the shape of which are written in the shape of the material of the VTR, and is also in the shape of the shape, door, door, or video recording, and shall not be deemed to fall under the category of goods identical or similar to those of the cited trademarks, even if they fall under the category of electrical product and similar to those of the product.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990), Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 753 of Sep. 4, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1093 decided Mar. 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1288) 90Hu1178 decided Mar. 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1289) 91Hu1687 decided May 12, 192 (Gong192, 1865)

Patent Attorney Kim Jae-o, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1136 dated October 31, 1991

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the trademark " " " " is the designated goods of this original trademark as well as rubber products for the purpose of generating and selling goods under the attached Table 39 of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, and the prior registered trademark " " is the same as or similar to the other goods under social norms, since the production and selling of the goods are done at the same company and the same place, and its appearance and concept are different from those of the goods of this case, and thus, the trademark " " is the first registered trademark" is the first designated goods of this original trademark and the second designated goods of this case are the second designated goods of this case and the second designated goods of this case are different from those of the cited trademark under the attached Table 39 of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1382, Apr. 13, 1997).

(2) However, the Schedule of Goods under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration and does not have the same kind of goods. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the goods are identical or similar to those of the goods in the same kind. The same and similar nature of the designated goods should be determined in accordance with the transactional norms by considering the quality, shape, use, the circumstances of transaction, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Hu178, Mar. 27, 1991).

According to the records, the designated goods of the trademark are classified into telecommunications equipment and parts of the items of subparagraph 9 among telecommunications equipment and appliances of subparagraph 7 of the attached Table 39, and each of the designated goods of the cited trademark falls under category 39 of the same attached Table, but the category of goods and items are different. The Rode tape, which is the designated goods of the original trademark, is inside the case where the scaming of a plastic medium on synthetic resin, is carried out as a light synthetic resin, and is in the shape of VTR, where the scaming of images and voice is cut down as a light synthetic resin, and the scams are in the shape of the shape, the scambling, door-to-door, or video-recording machine and appliances of subparagraph 7 of the attached Table 39, and the designated goods of the cited trademark are mainly for the use of electrical or industrial purposes, and even if the scambling is not similar to the scambling shape, it falls under the category of the two products or products under the attached Table.

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the original condition that the designated goods of the original trademark are identical to the designated goods of the cited trademark and maintained the original condition that rejected the registration of the original trademark pursuant to Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to whether the designated goods are suitable under the Trademark Act, and there is a reason to point this out.

(3) Therefore, the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)