Japanese Exemplary Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Su-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

June 19, 2015

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 27, 2015 on a case No. 2014 won 43 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The applied trademark of this case

1) Date/application number of the application: August 29, 2012 (trademark application number 1 omitted)

2) Composition:

3) Designated goods: The bags of Category 18, the shoes of Category 25, and the shoes of Chapter 25 (Attached Form 1) are as shown in the classification of the goods.

(b) Preregistered trademark;

1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: October 25, 2000 / January 6, 2003 (trademark application number 2 omitted)

2) Composition:

3) Designated goods: Documents shown in Category 18, sportss listed in Category 25, personal clothes other than [Attachment 2] are classified into the classification of goods.

4) Person entitled to registration: Sentent Aeblbl, Sentent Ablves (hereinafter referred to as “Savel”)

C. Details of the instant trial decision

On December 16, 2013, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to reject the Plaintiff’s application of the trademark on the ground that “The prior registered trademark, the mark, and the designated goods are similar to those of the prior registered trademark, and Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act constitutes Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act, considering the fact that the prior registered trademark and its appearance are similar to those of the prior registered trademark and the designated goods are related to the trademark, etc. (Evidence No. 4 and No. 1).”

On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial against the aforementioned decision of refusal (2014 won 43) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. On February 27, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s petition for a trial on the ground that “The trademark applied for trademark of this case is similar to the trademark of this case, and its external appearance is identical or similar to the trademark of this case, and the designated goods fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act because the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the trademark of this case, and the designated goods are identical or similar to those of the prior registered trademark recognized as the trademark of this case among domestic and foreign consumers, and are used for unlawful purposes, such as obtaining unfair profits, and thus, cannot obtain trademark registration by falling under Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Grounds for revoking the Plaintiff’s trial decision

In light of the fact that the trademark applied for registration of this case is deemed to be common in terms of the alpha B’s drafting of the alpha B’s alpha “B” in the shape of the alpha, and the size of which is different from that of the alphab B in the shape of the alpha, the prior registered trademark is in the shape of the alpha B in which the size of which is the same as that of the alpha’s square, and the shape and internal structure are different; the trademark applied for registration of this case is recognized as a building with the roof different from that of the prior registered trademark; while both trademarks are recognized as a building with the alpha’s alpha’s alpha’s alpha’s alpha’s alpha; however, the trademark applied for registration of this case is not similar to that of the prior registered trademark; thus, it does not fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

In addition, the pre-registered trademark cannot be deemed to be known as a trademark of algori, and the mark of the applied trademark of this case and the pre-registered trademark are not similar, and the Plaintiff does not constitute Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act, since there is no improper purpose for the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the ruling of this case, which dismissed the plaintiff's request for judgment, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark are deemed to be a combination of external black diagrams and internal white diagrams and shapes “B” as a whole. The pending trademark of this case is similar to a dominant increase in “B” form compared to the prior registered trademark, and thus falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

The invention of this case is identical or similar to the prior registered trademark known as a trademark between domestic and foreign consumers, and used for unlawful purposes. Thus, Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act also constitutes a trademark under Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act.

3. Whether the trademark is similar;

A. Criteria for judgment

Since the external appearance of a figure trademark has a dominant increase in the shape, the similarity of the figure trademark should be determined on the basis of whether the dominant increase in appearance is identical or similar, and if two trademarks are used together with the same or similar goods, it would cause ordinary consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the origin of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do1512, Mar. 14, 2013; 201Hu1548, Jul. 25, 2013).

B. Specific determination

이 사건 출원상표와 선등록상표의 표장을 대비하여 보면, 이 사건 출원상표(“ ”)는 위로 뾰족한 오각형 형태의 검은색 도형 내부에 흰색의 옆으로 누운 아치형의 크기가 다른 도형 2개가 상하로 배치되어 있고, 선등록상표(“ ”)는 정사각형 형태의 검은색 도형 내부에 흰색의 옆으로 누운 아치형의 크기가 같은 도형 2개가 상하로 배치되어 있다.

이 사건 출원상표와 선등록상표는 검은색 도형 내부에 흰색의 옆으로 누운 아치형의 도형 2개가 상하로 배치된 점에서는 유사하나, ① 모두 하나의 검은색 도형와 그 내부의 2개의 흰색 도형으로 구성된 매우 단순한 형태의 도형 상표로서, 검은색 도형의 형태가 상표의 지배적인 인상을 좌우한다고 할 것인데, 이 사건 출원상표는 위쪽으로 뾰족하게 올라간 부분이 도드라진 오각형의 형상인 반면에 선등록상표는 정사각형의 형상으로 상표를 구성하는 주된 도형의 모양이 서로 다르고, ② 위와 같은 형상으로 인해 이 사건 출원상표는 전체적으로 지붕을 가진 ‘집’을 연상시키는 반면에 선등록상표는 알파벳 “B"로 인식되므로, 상표가 불러일으키는 관념도 서로 다르며, ③ 이 사건 출원상표와 선등록상표의 외관상 유사한 부분은 알파벳 ”B"를 도안화함으로 인한 것인데, 이 사건 심결시인 2015. 2. 27. 기준으로 ” “, ” “, ” “ 등 알파벳 ”B"를 모티브로 한 수 개의 도형상표들이 ‘가방, 의류’를 지정상품으로 하여 등록되어 있고(갑 제5 내지 11호증), 이와 같이 같은 상품류에 같은 종류의 도형상표들이 여러 개 등록되어 있는 경우 일반 수요자나 거래자가 상품 거래시 좀 더 주의를 기울이게 되어 출처의 오인·혼동 가능성이 줄어드는 점 등의 사정을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 출원상표는 선등록상표와 그 지배적인 외관이 확연히 다르고, 이러한 외관의 차이로 인해 선등록상표와 동일·유사한 상품에 같이 사용되는 경우에도 일반 수요자나 거래자로 하여금 상품의 출처에 관하여 오인·혼동을 일으킬 염려가 없으므로, 선등록상표와 서로 유사하지 않다.

4. Conclusion

As seen above, similarity between the applied trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark cannot be recognized. Thus, the applied trademark of this case does not fall under both Article 7 (1) 7 and 12 of the Trademark Act.

Therefore, the trial decision of this case, which has different conclusions, is unlawful, and the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

[Attachment]

Judges Jeong Jong-young (Presiding Judge)