[1] Whether the registered trademark "GLD RIC", "B" and "RIC" and "GL" are similar to the cited trademark "GLH" and "GL" (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of a trademark subject to consideration in determining whether it falls under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

[1] If the registered trademark (1) and (2) "GOD RIC" are compared to the cited trademark (1) which is the other party's registered trademark based on the earlier application, (2) "GODH", and the cited trademark (2) "RIC", the registered trademark (1) and (2) is likely to cause confusion and confusion between ordinary consumers as to the source of goods, if the trademark is used together with the cited trademark and the cited trademark are used for the designated goods identical or similar to the registered trademark, and the combination does not form a new concept as a result of the combination, and if the trademark is viewed as the composition of the trademark and observation is made separately, the combination does not constitute a series of natural information and does not constitute a new concept. In light of the circumstances of the commercial society, the registered trademark (1) and (2) can be briefly referred to as "RICH", and the registered trademark (2) is identical with the cited trademark (1), (2) and (2).

[2] Although the meaning of the trademark is "(e) in the English language "RIC" which is a part of the trademark, the meaning of the trademark shall be that ordinary consumers can report the trademark in a direct fashion, examine and examine the trademark, or find it in advance, and it shall not be considered that the meaning of the trademark can only be known, and even if it is difficult to see that the "RIC" in the transactional world of the designated goods is the meaning of "(e) fright and good character", it is difficult to see that the above part of the registered trademark as referred to in / [1] among the registered trademark as referred to in / [1] the "RICH" and the "gright" portion as the cited trademark falls under the character of the goods and thus it cannot be said that the cited trademark has no distinctiveness.

[1] Articles 7(1)7 and 71(1)1 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1521 decided Oct. 29, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3579), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1521 decided Jul. 25, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2721), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu1450 decided May 29, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 170) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu114 decided Nov. 11, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 327), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1923 decided Mar. 24, 195 (Gong195Sang, 1755) (Gong1978 decided Dec. 26, 1997)

[Defendant-Appellee] Shipper Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Yong-ho et al.)

Career Cuber Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office 96 No. 110, 111 decided April 30, 1997

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the court below's decision, in comparison with the trademark (1) (3 omitted) of this case (1) and the trademark (2) (2) of this case (GOLD RIC) which are another person's registered trademark by earlier application based on earlier application, the court below determined that (1) and (2) of this case are identical or similar to the trademark of this case, and (2) of this case's trademark of this case's trademark of this case's case's (2) (4 omitted) which are identical or similar to the trademark of this case's trademark of this case's (1) and (2) which are identical or similar to the trademark of this case's (7) which are identical or similar to the trademark of this case's (1), since (1) and (2) of this case's registered trademark of this case's case's trademark of this case's case are not combined with a series of concepts to create a new concept by combining it on February 23, 1993.

2. Examining the reasoning for the decision of the court below in light of the records and relevant statutes, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The grounds of appeal pointing

3. The part of the trademark of this case and the cited trademark do not have distinctiveness because they fall under the nature of the product. Thus, the registered trademark of this case cannot be called or conceptualized as "hye" or "RIC". However, although the meaning of the trademark of this case and "hye" in "hye and good fye and good fye and good fye and fye" in "hye and hye" in "hye and hye" in "hye and hye and hye" in the trademark of this case, the meaning of the trademark of this case should be fye and hye that ordinary consumers can directly display the trademark, and it is not the subject of consideration (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Hu1923, Mar. 24, 1995; 97Hu122, Dec. 26, 197; see Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu112, Feb. 26, 1997).

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)