A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

(b) Whether the trademark is similar (affirmative) with the cited trademark “HENRIBEAL” (affirmative);

A. Whether a trademark is similar should be determined by whether there is a possibility of mistake or confusion between the goods in trade by observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trade names used for the goods of the same kind in an objective, overall, and differently from each other. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, if the name, name, and concept are similar and thus it is easy to confuse them.

B. [Patent] The cited trademark is a trademark composed of diagrams and English, and the cited trademark “HENENDL” is a trademark marked in English, and the cited trademark is a trademark rather than being recognized as a single concept or name among ordinary consumers by combination of the foregoing English characters, but rather is a trademark under the tendency of ordinary consumers who want to memory the trademark by a simple name or concept, it shall be easy to recognize the trademark by the part “HENI” or its concept. Thus, even if there is an external difference, if two trademarks are used for the same kind of product, it is likely for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse the source.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu175 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991,481) 90Hu1093 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991,128) 91Hu608 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong191,2624)

Luxembourg Liri Liri Liri (Attorneys Lee Jae-eh et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 90Na313 Dated April 30, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether there is a possibility of mistake or confusion between the goods in trade by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept, etc. of two trade names used for the goods of the same kind. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, if the name, name, and concept are similar and thus it is easy to confuse them.

According to the records, the trademark of this case is identical to the trademark of this case composed of diagrams and English (application trademark) and the cited trademark is marked as English (HENRI BEEL) and all of the goods of this case are designated goods.

However, the above cited trademark, rather than being recognized as a single concept or name among ordinary consumers by combining the above English letters with a single word or concept, shall be referred to as "GeNRI" by the part of "HENRI" or easy to recognize its concept. In this case, even if there is a difference in appearance, if two trademarks are used for the same kind of goods, it is similar in the name, concept, and thus, it is likely that ordinary consumers may cause misconception and confusion as to the source.

The original decision to the same effect is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks.

The precedents pointed out by the theory of lawsuit are not appropriate in this case. The argument is without merit.

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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)