206Heo808 Decision of Refusal (Trademarks)

아사히가세이셍이 가부시키가이샤 ( 旭化成世h, 株式會社 )

Japan

Representative

Patent Attorney Na-young et al.

Patent Attorney Park Sung-soo

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Litigation Performers;

November 15, 2006

December 13, 2006

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 29, 2006 on the case No. 2005 Won7130 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute]

(a) Details of the trial decision;

The Korean Intellectual Property Office filed the Plaintiff for the following reasons: (a) the instant trademark is similar to the prior registered trademark 1, 2, and 3; and (b) the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to reject the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that it constitutes Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act; and (b) the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal also rendered the instant decision to reject the Plaintiff’s claim on the same ground as to the Plaintiff’s appeal against the said decision to reject the said decision.

B. Composition of the applied trademark (1) of this case: (2) the filing date of the initial application / the filing date of the divisional application: / the filing date of February 5, 2004 / 2005 / the designated goods of March 29, 2005 - 13529 (3) : Porse, Titts, swimming clothes, straws, tanks, tanks, lecokes, lecokes, liftss, bathing rooms, bruts, swimmings, water typ, typ, typtons, sports airbruts, typ, typton, typtons (j) / the application number: 25th day of the registration of the two kinds (25th day of the registration of the No. 125th day of the No. 25th day of the application, 36th day of the registration of the No. 125th day of the No. 25th day of the Movement.

(d) Composition of 2 (1) of the Prior Registered Trademark: (2) Date of application / Date of registration / Number: The designated goods on March 23, 2002 / January 26, 2004 (3) No. 572416 (No. 572416) of the Prior Registered Trademark: knee protection zone, knee protection zone, cattle-free balls, clock bags, bowlinggs, skiinggs, Hakik-kaks, divings and knives (Classification of goods No. 28);

2. Whether the trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark are similar

A. Legal doctrine

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether there is a possibility of mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods by observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks objectively, comprehensively, and separately, and on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with respect to the trademark. However, in the case of a combined trademark combining each constituent element of letters, letters, or figures, it is not merely a name, concept, but a separate observation of each constituent element is not an integral combination to a degree that it is deemed natural in the trade, unless it is an integral combination to a degree that it is not natural in the trade. In addition, where it is possible to think of two or more names or concepts from one trademark, if the name, concept of one of them is deemed identical or similar to that of another trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu253, Nov. 25, 2005).

(b) preparation for both trademarks;

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence No. 1 (including each number), empirical rule, and purport of the whole pleadings]

Examining whether the pending trademark is similar to the pre-registered trademark in light of the above legal principles, first of all, the trademark of this case is a combination of English language word “APUA” with the intent of water, liquid, volume, etc. and English language word “APUAE”. The pre-registered trademark 1 is a mark marked as “MICRALE” and the pre-registered trademark 2 is a trademark with the foregoing English language word “MICRALE” and the English language word “MICRALE” is a combination of the English language word “MICRCEE” and its overall appearance differs from each other.

However, as to the similarity between the name and concept, the trademark of this case contains an indivisible or combination of two words, and the concept of "AUA" is not derived from a new name or concept of "AUA". Among these, the term "AUA" is currently a large scooch viewing facility, "Acua business Schlage", and the trademark or name of water purifier "Acoo water purifier", which is commonly used in daily life as well as the words used in goods or services, such as "Aqua - bedle (in the case of heading 4)", the trademark of this case includes a combination of the above two words, or two words as a combination of these two words, and the trademark of this case includes a combination of three or more new names, namely, a combination of three or more new names, namely, a combination of five or more new names, namely, a combination of three or more different names, a combination of five or more different names, and the trademark of this case contains a strong level of 1 or more different characters, such as a combination of five or more different trademarks.

If so, the trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark named as "MICRE (U.S.C.)" under its composition are all the designated goods of the trademark, such as maurts, Titts, sports airrts, sports pumps, knicks, etc. or similar goods, which are included in the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case, and ordinary consumers or traders can directly control their names, concepts, and the same and similarity of their concepts, when used in swimmings, swimming pans, etc. included in the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the applied trademark of this case and the pre-registered trademark of this case are different from their appearance at the time of the overall observation, but their names and concepts are likely to cause mistake and confusion as to the origin of goods in trade due to the similarity of concepts, and thus, the applied trademark of this case cannot be registered under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Ki-taik

Marain

Freeboard Kim