A. Criteria for determining whether the designated goods are identical or similar

(b) Whether it is identical or similar to a satellite broadcasting container that is designated as the designated goods in the applied trademark “SKYPR” and a direct power generator, etc., which is the designated goods in the cited trademark “SYScar” (negative);

A. The classification of goods under Article 11(1) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration, and it does not define the scope of similarity of goods. Thus, it cannot be determined that the goods belong to the same kind or similar goods as the classification of goods. Whether the designated goods are identical or similar shall be determined in accordance with the general transaction norms by comprehensively taking into account the production sector, sales sector, use sector, main raw materials, consumer’s scope, completion, transaction relation with parts, etc.

B. The designated goods of the applied trademark “SYPRT” and the cited trademark “SKYcar” belong to the category 39 of the product classification list under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, but the designated goods of the applied trademark fall under the category 7 telecommunications machinery and equipment of the 39th category as satellite broadcasting container, and the designated goods of the cited trademark fall under the category 4 of the broadcasting equipment of the 7th category of telecommunications machinery and equipment of the 39th category. The designated goods of the cited trademark belong to the product group or trademark tax items different from all designated goods of the applied trademark in light of the quality, shape, use, and transaction circumstances of the goods.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

[Defendant, Appellant] Korea National Patent Office (Law Firm Maritime Affairs Office, Attorney Choi Sung-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 10 October 31, 1992

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

The first ground for appeal by the applicant's attorney is examined.

On December 29, 1989, when the applicant applied for the trademark on March 12, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "SKYPRT"), "SY" and "PYK", which are registered by an earlier application (hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark later), the applicant applied for trademark on December 12, 1991, the lower court determined to the effect that the applicant’s trademark is identical or similar to those of the cited trademark on the designated goods in the transaction of the designated goods, and that the applicant’s trademark is not identical or similar to those of the cited trademark (hereinafter referred to as the "SKY" and the cited trademark), and that it is not clearly identical or similar to those of the cited trademark on the goods of the cited trademark, and that the trademark is identical or similar to those of the cited trademark on the goods of the identical or similar type 1, which are identical or similar to those of the cited trademark on the designated goods of the former Type 3, which are identical or similar to those of the latter.

However, the classification of goods under Article 11(1) of the former Trademark Act and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration and does not define the scope of similarity of goods (Article 11(2) of the same Act). Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the designated goods belong to the same kind of kind or similar goods as the classification of goods. Whether the designated goods are identical or similar shall be determined in accordance with the common sense of ordinary transactions by considering the scope of the production sector, sales sector, use, main raw materials, consumers’ transaction status, etc. of the designated goods and the relation and transaction status of the goods with the raw materials and components (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu152, Aug. 25, 1987; 89Hu2090, Jul. 10, 1990; 90Hu9777, Nov. 27, 1990; 2000Hu1397, Nov. 27, 1997).

Nevertheless, the court below did not properly examine and decide whether the original trademark and each of the designated goods of the cited trademark are identical or similar to the original trademark, and held that the original trademark is identical or similar to the cited trademark of another person, which is the trademark of another person by earlier application, and therefore, the original trademark cannot be registered under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act. Thus, the original trademark does not properly examine the original trademark or is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "goods identical or similar to the former trademark" under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the trial decision. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the case shall be reversed and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion without examining the grounds of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)