A. Criteria for determining the same or similarity of a trademark and designated goods under Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

B. The identity of the original trademark and the cited trademark, as well as similar BNDO MACHINE CO. LTD. (negative)

(c) Cases where the designated goods belong to the same classification of goods, but they are not similar goods in light of the use, shape, and actual status of transactions;

A. "Trademarks identical or similar to those of reasons for refusal of registration" under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act shall not be deemed the same or similar trademark in cases where the whole appearance, name, and concept of the two trademarks compared are observed objectively, entirely, externally, and objectively, and even if any of the appearance, name, and concept is similar, it is clearly possible to avoid confusions as to the release. In addition, whether the designated goods are identical or not shall be determined in accordance with the transactional norms in light of their quality, shape, use, the circumstances of transaction, etc., and even if the goods belonging to the same kind of product under the classification of goods under the Regulations of the Trademark Act fall under the same kind of product.

B. Even if there is a similar feature in the name of this original trademark and the cited trademark with the word “indones”, the appearance or concept of “indones” is considerably different. Thus, the two trademarks can not be said to be identical or similar trademarks as it is difficult to deem that the two trademarks are easily distinguishable and may cause mistake or confusion as to the release of goods.

C. The cited trademark was crossed off to 4 lines in Korean and English as the Republic of Korea, and is similar to the original trademark, even if it is a trademark of this origin similar to the original trademark, the former, in category 37 of the product classification, has decided an elevator, cargo line, helicopter, passenger car, tringer, tringer, busper, tringer, tringer, busper, tringer, tringer, and the latter, among categories 37 of the product classification, as the former designated goods. In comparison, each of the above designated goods is the transport machinery in a broad sense, but in light of its use, form, transaction situation, etc., it cannot be viewed as the same or similar goods, and thus, the latter trademark registration cannot be refused on the grounds of the former.

(b)Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act; (c) Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act;

Dom Machinery Corporation

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

On December 30, 1981, 1981, the Korean Intellectual Property Office Trial Decision No. 1227, Dec. 30, 1980

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal by claimant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the original trial decision of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") maintains measures against the respondent's rejection ruling in accordance with Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act on the ground that the name or concept of the part constituting the essential part is the same, even though there is a little difference in appearance in comparison with the registered trademark Nos. 43,116 (hereinafter referred to as "(1) and 50,403 (hereinafter referred to as "personally used trademark") which is registered by another person, even though the name or concept of the trademark constituting the essential part is identical or similar to the designated goods.

2. According to Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, a trademark which is identical or similar to another person's registered trademark based on an earlier application and which is used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark shall not be registered. Thus, in order to refuse registration pursuant to the above provision, the trademark should be identical or similar to the trademark, and the designated goods should be identical or similar to the trademark. The trademark "the same or similar trademark" in this context refers to the trademark identical or similar to the two trademarks compared in terms of its appearance, name, and concept objectively, as a whole, as a whole, must be observed in an objective, overall, and different manner, and one of its appearance, name, and concept can clearly avoid confusion upon release. In addition, the issue of whether it is identical or similar goods should be determined in accordance with the transaction norms in light of its quality, shape, use, and transaction circumstances, and even if it falls under the goods of the same kind under the product classification table under the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act, it cannot be concluded that it is identical goods.

According to the records, this original trademark is marked in the figure “B” and is marked in English and English, and (1) the personal trademark is marked in two sides as “BNDO” and is marked in English on the shape below the figure “b” in Korean. The above two trademarks have the word “companion” in their names, and even if they have the word “companionity” in their names, there is a significant difference in their appearance or concept, the above two trademarks can not be seen as identical or similar trademarks, and the above two trademarks can not be seen as being identical or similar trademarks, and (2) the latter two trademarks cannot be seen as identical or similar trademarks, and in light of (3) the latter two trademarks cannot be seen as identical or similar trademarks, the latter two trademarks cannot be seen as identical or similar trademarks, and (4) the latter two trademarks are identical or similar trademarks to the latter two trademarks, but the latter two trademarks are identical or similar trademarks to the latter two trademarks, and the latter two trademarks are identical or similar to the latter two trademarks, and the latter two trademarks are identical or similar to the latter two trademarks, each of the latter two trademarks.

3. Thus, the original adjudication is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles in determining the similarity or similarity of trademarks with the designated goods, which affected the conclusion of the adjudication. The appeal pointing this out is with merit, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for Appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)