Whether the trademark “Minoxl” and “MINCIN” are similar (affirmative)

The term "MINCIN" in this original trademark is applied for the registration of species other than the 10th quantitatives, the Aminoxl, and the goods classification as designated goods. The cited trademark "MINCIN" is registered with species other than antibiotics, antibiotics, antibiotics, and antibiotics as designated goods. The two trademarks are similar in the name, and the designated goods are similar in the same kind to the same kind of drug and correspond to Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Mo Pharmaceutical Industries Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 88 Ba478 dated May 31, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

We examine the reasoning of the decision of the court below in light of the records. The "Minxl" of the main trademark is applied for the kind of 10 proteo, Amination, and sterilization exclusion as designated goods. The "MINCIN" of the cited trademark, which is the prior registered trademark, is registered as designated goods by using antibiotics, antibiotics, antibiotics, antibiotics, brus, and divers other than antibiotics as designated goods. The above two trademarks are similar to the first one as the reason at the time of the original trial, and are similar to the designated goods as the same medicine, and thus fall under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, and thus they are not eligible for registration of the original trademark. It is just and justified in the court below's decision that it is not possible to obtain registration of the original trademark, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, lack of reasons,

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.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)