(a) An empirical rule as to the title of a trademark marked in English;

B. Whether the trademark applied for and the trademark cited for prior registration are similar (affirmative)

(a) In the title of a trademark, the name generally expressed in English shall be the empirical rule of the trading society, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, that the name shall be named in accordance with the sound sign of English language;

B. The applicant trademark is a product classification and designated goods as a blood tester and blood tester, and the prior-registered trademark is a automatic diagnostic body and a required examiner that analyze the parts of the human body in order to detect the existence of the misused narcotics and the classification of the goods and the designated goods, the selection and appointment equipment, the escape ground, and the existence of the misused narcotics. Although the title of the intermediate text of the application trademark and the cited trademark differs in part from “non” and “di”, it cannot be ruled out to be extremely similar to ordinary consumers or traders when the overall name of both trademarks is referred to, as a whole. In light of the fact that the designated goods are the same kind, if they are used as the designated goods, it is so similar that there is concern for ordinary consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the source of goods.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Hu76 Decided February 11, 1986 (Gong1986, 457)

h.V.S Law Firm, Central Patent Office, Attorneys Kim Dong-hwa et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant;

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1845 Dated April 30, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined by whether the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are objectively, overall, and separately and objectively observe the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark and are likely to cause mistake or confusion among the goods in the transaction. Even if there are different parts among the trademarks, if the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark are similar to those of the designated goods in the transaction of the designated goods and are likely to cause confusion because the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark are similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1786, Apr. 24, 1992). In addition, in the name of the trademark, unless there are any special circumstances to refer otherwise, the name, name, and concept of the trademark whose name are generally English is referred to in the English language, according to the figure of the English language (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Hu766, Feb. 11, 1986).

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the trademark which is the main trademark is a product classification and the designated goods are 11 and blood analysis technicians, blood examination technicians, and that the prior-registered trademark is a product classification and the designated goods are automatic diagnosis devices and urology testing devices which analyze human body bodies in order to detect the existence of misused narcotics. Although the title of the main trademark and the cited trademark is partly different from the word "B" and "D", the degree of difference can not be ruled out that both the two trademarks are extremely similar to ordinary consumers or traders when they are collectively named. In light of the fact that the designated goods are the same, if they are used as the designated goods, they are similar to the designated goods, they are likely to mislead or confuse general consumers or traders into the place of delivery of goods. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out, and there is no ground for appeal.

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)