A. Criteria for determining whether designated goods are identical or similar

(b) The case holding that although all the designated goods of the applied trademark and the cited trademark belong to the same kind as the goods classification table and are related to the finished product and parts, it cannot be determined that they are similar in light of the general transaction norms in light of the circumstances of the transaction, such as the quality, shape, use and sales network of the goods;

A. The classification of goods under Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration, and does not define the scope of similarity of goods. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the goods belong to the same kind of kind as the classification of goods can not be immediately the same or similar goods. Whether the designated goods are identical or similar to the designated goods should be determined in accordance with the general transaction norms by taking into account the actual circumstances of the transaction, such as quality, shape, use and production, sales sector, scope of consumers, etc.

B. The case holding that although all the designated goods of the applied trademark and the cited trademark belong to Class 5 of Class 37 of the product classification table under the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and are related to the finished product and the finished product, the "truck" and the designated goods of the cited trademark, which are the designated goods of the applied trademark, are easily distinguishable in terms of quality, shape, use, and the goods of the cited trademark, and the "truck", which are finished in a general transaction, are sold through each sales agency network of the relevant automobile manufacturer and mainly purchased by the freight transportation company or the personal transport business entity, while the "vehicle power transmission labelling labelling labelling labelling, etc., etc.," which are the parts, are mainly purchased through the parts sales agency of the automobile directly operated by the automobile company (this is different from the sales agency of the automobile, which is the finished product) or the car service center or the goods purchased by the automobile specialized and replaced or repaired by the automobile specialized sales store, etc., in light of the quality, shape, use and sales network of the goods, etc.

Article 10 of the Trademark Act, Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 92Hu2106 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1712). Supreme Court Decision 92Hu98 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 732), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1506 delivered on February 22, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1106), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu425 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1837), Supreme Court Decision 89Hu18 delivered on October 24, 1989 (Gong199, 1793).

Attorney Ansan-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na73 dated April 30, 1994

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the original trademark "LIFT" is a character trademark composed of two parallels of Korean language "LIFT GET" and English text "LIFTE" and "LIFT" means "LIFT", and "GIFTE" means "LIFT" and "GIFTE" means "rogate, entrance, official door, etc." and it is directly sense that "LIFT" means "elevator's door" and "LIFT" is recognized as a type of "GTE", and therefore, in this original trademark, the essential parts of "LIFGE" are "GTE" and the cited trademark is a trademark of the same part as the trademark of this case, and it is merely a trademark of the same part as the trademark of this case, which is a similar part to the trademark of this case, and thus, it is nothing more than that of the two designated goods "GGE" as the trademark of this case, which is a similar part of the trademark of this case.

However, even if the applied trademark is similar to the pre-registered cited trademark, it does not constitute a sub-registered trademark under the Trademark Act unless it is used for designated goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the pre-registered trademark. The classification of goods under Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration and does not define the scope of similarity of goods (Article 10(2) of the Trademark Act). Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the designated goods are the same or similar goods just because they belong to the same kind of product classification. The similarity of the designated goods shall be determined in accordance with the general transaction norms by taking into account the actual circumstances of the transaction, such as quality, shape, use, production sector, sale sector, scope of consumers, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Hu1506, Feb. 22, 1994; 92Hu2106, May 11, 1993).

According to the records, all the designated goods of the original trademark and the cited trademark belong to Class 5 of Class 37 of the product classification list under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act and are related to the finished product and the finished product. However, in light of the quality, shape, use and sales network of the goods of the original trademark and the cited trademark's designated goods of the cited trademark, all of the designated goods of the original trademark are easily distinguishable in terms of quality, shape, and usage, and the "trucks", which are finished in a general transaction, are sold through each sales agency network of the vehicle manufacturing company, and mainly purchased by the freight company or the personal transport business operator. On the other hand, the "vehicle power transmission mark, etc.", which is the parts, is mainly purchased by the direct vehicle sales agency (the latter is different from the sales agency of the automobile) or the specialized vehicle sales store, etc., which is sold through the automobile directly operated or the automobile parts sales agency and purchased by the car specialized or service center, etc., in light of the situation of the goods' quality, shape, use and sales network, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the original trademark cannot be registered under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act on the ground that the designated goods of the trademark cited in the original trademark are identical to the designated goods of the original trademark, and that the designated goods are similar to the designated goods of the consumers or traders. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "the same or similar goods" under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, or that there is no error of law in the original trial decision, and it is obvious that such an error has affected the decision of trial. Thus, there is a reason to point

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that it is unnecessary to determine the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is reversed, and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)