The case holding that the registered trademark " " " " " " " and" are identical or similar to the prior registered trademark " "," and the name thereof are extremely similar to the designated goods, and thus constitutes grounds for invalidation of registration under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act as it is also identical or similar to the designated goods.

The case holding that the registered trademark " " " " " " " and" are identical or similar to the prior registered trademark " ", " " and the name are extremely similar, and the designated goods are also identical or similar to the designated goods, and thus constitutes grounds for invalidation of registration under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Kim Byung-soo (Law Firm Chang, Attorneys Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Manman Mumba (Patent Attorney Hwang-man et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

o October 6, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on May 26, 2005 on the case No. 2004Da2652 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The registered trademark of this case

(1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: October 8, 2001//Sgd. 560386 of September 24, 2003

(2) Composition:

(3) Designated goods: Madry, saves, saves, saves, swegs, swegs, liftss, sports air conditioners, caps and horses (category 25 of the classification of goods).

(4) Trademark right holder: Plaintiff

(b) Preregistered trademarks;

(i) the Prior Registered Trademark 1

(1) The filing date/registration date/ the renewal registration date/registration number: the filing date/registration date of May 6, 1972/ the renewal registration date/registration number: December 15, 1982/ September 15, 1982 (1) (1), May 14, 1992 (2) and April 10 (3)/27682

(2) Composition:

(3) Designated goods (the designated goods at the time of the application for the registration of the instant registered trademark as of July 12, 2003, inasmuch as the conversion and registration of the classification of goods was made, the designated goods at the time of the application for the trademark of this case): Towing, new clothes, student clothes, work clothes, two uniforms, booms, strings, Schlages, children's uniforms, strings, children's clothes, leburcot, lebrates, telebrates, nets, nets, straws, straws, straws, gots, straws, caps, carps, knifes, coppers, compines, bats, fashiones, trifes, trifs, bat, boomp, head, hairpine, spons, trif, trif, trif, trip, trip, trip, 9th of 3 main goods prior to their publication, 9.

(4) Trademark right holder: Defendant

(ii) the Prior Registered Trademark 2

(1) Date of application/registration date/registration date of renewal of the duration/registration date: Date of July 27, 1978/ June 19, 1979/ August 24, 1989 (1) and April 22, 199 (2)/62147

(2) Composition:

(3) Designated goods: simple paintings, paintings, leathers, sandboxes (category 25 of the classification of goods)

C. The procedural background

(1) The Defendant filed a petition for invalidation trial on the instant registered trademark on the grounds that the instant registered trademark falls under Article 7(1)4, 7, 9, and 12 of the Trademark Act, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on it as No. 2652, May 26, 2005, and rendered the instant trial ruling accepting the Defendant’s claim on the grounds that the instant registered trademark falls under Article 7(1)4, 7, 9 through 12 of the Trademark Act.

(2) Summary of the trial decision of this case

(A) The instant registered trademark and the prior registered trademark are different from each other and are not able to prepare for concepts. However, in their names, the instant registered trademark is referred to as “franc,” and the prior registered trademark can be referred to as “franc,” and the initial and gravity of the first sound is the same as “ D,” and the second sound is the genetic nature of “b” and the two trademarks are similar in its overall sense.

(B) Of the designated goods of the instant registered trademark, “new clothes, sackers, Swegs, caps, and horses” are identical to those of the pre-registered trademark 1, and “shortified” is identical to those of the pre-registered trademark 2, and all the remaining designated goods are similar to each designated goods of the pre-registered trademark, as clothes and shoes.

(C) Therefore, the instant registered trademark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act in relation to the prior registered trademark and its registration should be invalidated.

[Certificate] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1-1, 2

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Summary of the grounds for revoking the trial decision asserted by the plaintiff

이 사건 등록상표는 ‘랑방’으로 호칭될 것이고, 선등록상표들은 각 ‘란빈’으로 호칭되거나, 가사 프랑스어 발음례에 따른다 하더라도 ‘랭벵, 랑벵’으로 호칭될 것인바, ‘랑방’과 ‘란빈, 랭벵, 랑벵’은 청감이 달라서, 이 사건 등록상표가 선등록상표들과 유사하다고 할 수 없으므로 상표법 제7조 제1항 제7호 가 적용될 여지가 없다.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

선등록상표들은 프랑스어 발음례에 따라 ‘랑방’으로 호칭되기 쉬우므로, 그 호칭이 이 사건 등록상표의 호칭인 ‘랑방’과 동일하고, 가사 그외에 ‘란빈, 랭벵, 랑벵’으로 호칭된다 하더라도 전체적인 청감이 이 사건 등록상표와 유사하다.

3. Determination

A. Whether the trademark is similar

(1) The registered trademark of this case and the pre-registered trademark are all the text trademarks of the language, without any special concept, different from the appearance, and cannot be compared with the concept.

(2) Whether the name is similar

(A) In light of today’s wide spread of advertisement and publicity media, telephone, etc., the similarity of a trademark is the most important factor in determining whether the trademark is similar in determining the similarity of a text trademark (Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3050 delivered on February 25, 200). Whether the trademark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act should be determined based on the time of application for the trademark.

(나) 살피건대, 이 사건 등록상표는 ‘랑방(드물게는 ‘랭뱅’)으로 호칭될 것이고, 선등록상표들은 프랑스어 발음례에 따라 ‘랑방’ 또는 ‘랑벵’, ‘랭벵’으로 호칭되거나, 영어 발음례에 따라 ‘란빈’ 또는 ‘랜빈’으로 호칭될 가능성이 있다.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 2-1 through No. 6 and No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3, the defendant, a company of French nationality, has registered the pre-registered trademark as part of its trade name in Korea for not less than 30 years, or for not more than 30 years, and has traded clothes, cosmetics, bags, etc. using the pre-registered trademark or the aforementioned marks in Korea for a considerable amount of time. The defendant, on January 20, 198, registered the trademark containing "LNVIN" and "FC" as designated goods, and on March 2005, most of the pre-registered trademarks were registered under the pre-registered trademark at the time of search using the Internet portal as of November 204 and March 2005, and since then, at the time of the pre-registered trademark as of March 1, 2007, it is recognized that the pre-registered trademarks were pre-registered by consumers or consumers for 10 years after the search.

위와 같이, 선등록상표들은 이 사건 등록상표의 출원 당시는 물론 현재에 이르기까지 ‘랑방’으로 발음될 가능성이 매우 높은바, 그 경우 이 사건 등록상표의 호칭 중 ‘랑방’과 완전히 동일하다. 나아가, 선등록상표들이 ‘랑벵’ 또는 ‘랭벵’으로 발음 될 경우에도, 이 사건 등록상표의 호칭인 ‘랑방, 랭뱅’과 음절수가 같은데다가, 첫 음절의 초성이 ‘ㄹ’, 둘째 음절의 초성이 ‘ㅂ’으로 각 같고, 각 종성 또한 유성음인 ‘ㅇ'으로 같으며, 중성의 모음인 ‘ㅏ', ‘ㅔ', ‘ㅐ'는 청감이 서로 유사하므로 결국 이 사건 등록상표의 호칭인 ‘랑방’, ‘랭뱅’과 선등록상표들의 호칭인 ‘랑벵’, ‘랭벵’은 전체적으로 극히 유사하다 할 것이다.

따라서 선등록상표들이 ‘랑방’, ‘랑벵’, ‘랭벵’으로 불리울 경우 이 사건 등록상표의 호칭과 동일하거나 청감이 극히 유사하여, 일반 수요자나 거래자로 하여금 이 사건 등록상표와 선등록상표들의 사이에 출처의 오인, 혼동을 불러일으킬 염려가 있으므로, 양 상표는 유사하다.

(b) Similar to designated goods;

Of the designated goods of the instant registered trademark, “new clothes, sackers, Swegs, caps, and horses” are identical to those of the pre-registered trademark 1, and “short” is identical to those of the pre-registered trademark 2. The remainder of the designated goods are goods similar to those of the pre-registered trademark 1, which are similar to the designated goods of the pre-registered trademark 1, producers, consumers’ floors, distribution channels, etc.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the registered trademark of this case is similar to the prior registered trademark, and its designated goods fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act because it falls under the same or similar designated goods, and its registration should be invalidated pursuant to Article 71(1) of the Trademark Act. Thus, the decision of this case is justified as it is consistent with the conclusion.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)