Whether the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark (affirmative)

In comparison with the applied trademark and the cited trademark, the appearance of the two trademarks are different from each other, but it is difficult to see that the word “or any other special name or concept than the word “any other than the word “any other” is created from the figure proposed to do so,” among the word indications of the applied trademark, the essential part of the applied trademark is “the word “,” and its name and concept are the same as or similar to those of the cited trademark, and if the two trademarks are used for the same or similar designated goods, it is likely to cause consumers to misunderstand or confuse the place of the goods.

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

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4455, Jun. 25, 1991) (Law No. 1991, 1991, 2038) and 90Hu2249, Jun. 25, 1991

Patent Attorney Choi-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Na1100 dated October 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined depending on whether the two trademarks used in the same or similar goods are likely to cause mistake or confusion among ordinary consumers or consumers as to the origin of goods in light of their appearance, name, and concept by observing objectively, comprehensively, and externally the two trademarks in terms of their appearance, name, and concept. Even if there are different parts among the trademarks, it shall be deemed as similar trademarks that may cause misconception or confusion among them when the overall observation is conducted as a whole (see Supreme Court Decision 83Hu66, Feb. 28, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1448, Jan. 25, 190).

(2) According to the record, the appearance of two trademarks differs from that of the original trademark and the trademark cited in the prior registration (1) of another person. However, the phrase "" in the original trademark is "any other special name or concept that is different from that of the original trademark," and it is difficult to see that the phrase "any other special name or concept than that of the original trademark" has occurred, and the name, concept is the same as or similar to that of the cited trademark, and if the two trademarks are used for the same or similar designated goods, it is likely to cause consumers to confuse or confuse the place of the goods.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the original trademark cannot be registered because it falls under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete hearing, or lack of reasoning. Therefore, the issue is without merit.

The Supreme Court Decision 88Hu1410 Decided September 29, 1989 cited by the theory of the lawsuit has different cases and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)