A. Whether it can be determined that a product of the same kind or similar kind belongs to the same kind under the Trademark Act (negative)

(b) The case reversing the original decision that recognized the goods of the same kind as goods of the same kind under the Trademark Act, on the ground that “the goods of the applied trademark,” “the goods of the applied trademark,” and “the goods of the cited trademark, “the carbon acids, organic halogs........... organic metal compounds, etc.,” belong to different kind of goods under the Trademark Act, was reversed on the ground that the original decision was an unlawful act

A. A trademark identical or similar to a registered trademark based on an earlier application is not used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark, unless it is used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark, it does not fall under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990). The same or similarity of the designated goods shall be determined in accordance with the transaction norms in consideration of their quality, use, shape, the circumstances of transaction, etc.

B. The designated goods of the applied trademark in the trademark in question fall under the chemical agents, such as removal for use, dilution, promotion of dilution, infiltrating agents, infiltration agents, chemical agents, anti-explosions, anti-explosions, and luminous basic defluences, etc., which are the designated goods of the applied trademark in question. While the consumers are mainly manufacturers of leather products, the designated goods of the cited trademark in question fall under the organic industry used as the raw materials or chemical processing materials of other chemical industrial drugs, and consumers fall under the organic industry used as the raw materials or chemical processing materials of each other, and if each product or consumer is different from each other, the designated goods fall under the organic industry in the category 10 of the product classification in the product list in the trademark law, and the trial decision recognized as the same kind of product directly belongs to the chemical tax, incomplete trial and incomplete trial, and unlawful reasons are as follows: (a) there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to similar goods under the trademark law; and (b) there are no errors in law.

Articles 9(1)7 and 11 of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990); Articles 7(1)7 and 7 of the Trademark Act; Article 10 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 753, Sep. 4, 1990); Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1974 delivered on July 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1801) 89Hu834 delivered on August 28, 1990 (Gong190, 2026)

룀 게젤샤프트 미트 베슈랭크터 하프퉁 소송대리인 법무법인 중앙국제법률특허사무소 담당변호사 조태연 외 2인

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Na438 dated June 23, 1990

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the trademark "RDA" and the cited trademark "RHAP are similar in the case of an applicant's assertion that all the designated goods are different from the original trademark "RDA" and the cited trademark "RHDAP" are letters and concepts, but the main trademark "ro-C" and the cited trademark are referred to as "roop" and the cited trademark is referred to as "roop" and thus there is a difference that "pop" after the cited trademark is referred to above, but it is extremely similar in the case of "roop", and further, the original trademark and the cited trademark are similar in the case of an applicant's assertion that the designated goods are different from each other, the court below maintained the trademark registration of the same kind of goods as the above producer or the above applicant's designated goods as the goods of this original trademark classification and the goods of the cited trademark "Isane, organic halog, organic halog, organic acid and its salts, etc." cannot be maintained.

2. However, even if a trademark is identical or similar to a registered trademark based on an earlier application, if it is not used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark, it does not fall under Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990). The same or similarity of the designated goods shall be determined in accordance with the transaction norms in consideration of their quality, use, shape, transaction circumstances, etc. The product oil list under the Trademark Act is separate for the convenience of trademark registration, and it is not a statutory provision for the same kind of goods. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that it belongs to the same kind of product in the above Schedule (see Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1974, Jul. 27, 1990; 89Hu834, Sept. 28, 199).

3. According to the records, the term “satisfying chemical”, which is the designated goods of the main trademark, belongs to chemical agents, such as divating, dilution, dilution, promotion agents, infiltration agents, emulation agents, internal agents, luminous agents, and blurgic basic finishing agents, which are used in the after-processing process of the leather. While the consumers are mainly manufacturers of leather products, the designated goods of the cited trademark, the term “carbon hydrogen, organic halogens..Mal compound” belongs to the organic industrial medicine used as the raw materials or chemical processing materials of other chemical and industry, and the consumers can be identified as those of the organic intermediate, pharmaceutical manufacturers, etc., on the other hand, regardless of the use of the above goods or the difference between the consumers and the shape of the two goods, manufacturer, seller, distributor, and distribution process, etc., it cannot be seen as similar to those of the two goods in the transaction room.

If the court below intends to recognize that the designated goods of the above two trademarks are the same kind of product with the same producer, consumer, or seller, it shall examine and determine whether the designated goods belong to the organic industrial medicine, chemical preparations, and chemical preparations of Category 10 of the product classification, not to do so in accordance with the above criteria as seen in paragraph 2 of the above Article.

Therefore, the original trial decision contains a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to similar goods under the Trademark Act or incomplete deliberation, or contains an error of incomplete reasoning, and there is a ground to point this out.

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office having jurisdiction over the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)