Whether the term “original trademark” and “a cited trademark” are similar (affirmative)

The cited trademark consisting of “” and “a cited trademark consisting of letters and Korean characters and original shapes” and “a cited trademark consisting of two or less names,” and “a cited trademark” refer to “use” and “use” as well as “use” as a word,” and both are identical in their concepts and, if used for the designated goods identical or similar to the two trademarks, there is concern that general consumers or traders may confuse the place of goods.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4,210 of September 1, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee

Attorney Lee Yong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 558 dated May 27, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the original trademark is a character trademark marked in the Roman and Korean, and the cited trademark is combined with a Korean character, Korean character and a figure in its original form, and the two trademarks are composed of two trademarks: (a) the appearance and name are below, (b) the appearance and name of the original trademark is referred to as “use”; and (c) the essential part of the cited trademark is referred to as “use,” and (d) the cited trademark is also referred to as “use,” and the two trademarks are identical in their concepts and are likely to cause mistake or confusion with ordinary consumers or traders as to the origin of goods if they are used for the same or similar designated goods, and thus, the original trademark is deemed to fall under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4, Sep. 1, 1990). In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks or the determination of similarity of trademarks.

The precedents of party members cited by the theory of lawsuit are not appropriate in this case. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)