Whether the trademark "Zenn" and the cited trademark " "" are similar

In comparison with the cited trademark "Zenn" and the other person's registered trademark "" which is the trademark of an earlier application, the cited trademark in the title is referred to as "gender" and the cited trademark differs from the cited trademark in the name of "gender", but the cited trademark is referred to as "gender" and the cited trademark differs from the cited one in the two two terms. However, in the cited trademark, if the cited trademark "gender" in the first sound, which is referred as the same as the applied trademark, is strong and weak, and the two are referred as a whole, it is extremely similar to that in the case of general consumers or traders, so if two trademarks similar to the name are used as the same or similar designated goods, it may cause mistake and confusion as to the origin of goods.

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

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 4540, Sep. 28, 1990). The plaintiff-appellant 1 and the plaintiff-appellant 1 and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant 1 and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant 1 and 1 other)

Law Firm Central Patent Office (Law Firm Maritime Affairs Office, Attorney Cho Sung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

KIPO 1136 decided January 29, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant are examined.

In comparison with the cited trademark "Zenn" which is the original trademark which was rendered by an earlier application on March 28, 1990 and the trademark "" which is the trademark of another person by an earlier application on June 21, 191, the court below held that the cited trademark in the title differs from "gender" in terms of "gender" and two short blasts in two short blasts in the cited trademark, but it is not reasonable to see that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the origin or origin of goods, and thus, it is not appropriate to see that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the origin or origin of goods in light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, since there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cited trademark in the cited trademark, since the first and second sound Section "B," which is the same as the original trademark, is a short and weak and so the overall name is called as a whole, it is extremely similar to that of ordinary consumers or traders, and therefore, if two similar trademarks are used on the designated goods identical or similar.

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

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)