(a) Whether the trademark applied for the goods of 12 categories, such as a pen, pentle, etc., of the classification of goods, and the trademark cited for the goods whose designated goods are subject to reduction of the studio of 22 category of goods, are similar (affirmative);

(b) Whether the applicant’s designated goods in the applied trademark are similar to the pentains, etc. as the designated goods in the cited trademark (affirmative);

A. [Application Trademark] The trademark is a combination of figures and English, and is designated as the designated goods of 12 kinds, such as the penmatics and pents, of the classification of goods. [Attachment Trademark] is a trademark in two English words, and the two trademarks are designated as the designated goods. The two trademarks are different from their appearance and ideas, but the two words in the cited trademark are not indivisible, but they cannot be said to be an integral combination, and the two words in the cited trademark cannot be said to be referred to as the "Constitution" by emphasizing the front part in accordance with the common cases referred to in the title only with a simple distinctive feature in the general trade world that respects simple speed, and even if the term "Hunston" is called as the "Hunston", both trademarks are identical, and thus, there is concern of mistake and confusion in terms of objective, overall observation.

B. It is a good similar in light of its function, use, transaction situation, etc., which is the designated goods of the applied trademark, and the cut of the pen as the designated goods of the cited trademark.

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

Patent Attorney Gyeong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and two others

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1910 Dated July 16, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the attorney of the applicant.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the trademark of this origin (application trademark) is a combination of figures and English and shall be the designated goods of 12 kinds, such as the pen, pentle, etc. of the classification of the goods, and that the trademark of this origin (application trademark) is the designated goods after determining that the trademark of this origin is the kind of 22 kind of tobacco cuter in the classification of the goods, although the appearance and concept are different, the two trademarks are different, but they cannot be said to be an indivisible combination in the cited trademark, and thus, they are referred to as "Hunt" by emphasizing the front part in the general transaction that respects simple rapid and rapidness only with the characteristic of the common transaction, and thus, even if the name is called "Huntton", it cannot be excluded from the similarity of the name, and thus, it is justified in the judgment of the court below that there is a concern of mistake, confusion, and confusion at the time of observing the two characters, and there is no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment of the court.

In addition, Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act only classifys goods for the convenience of trademark registration, but it does not mean that the same or similar goods belong to the same kind of trademark, and thus, it cannot be said that it belongs to the same kind of trademark immediately. The similarity of designated goods shall be determined in accordance with the transaction norms in consideration of the quality, shape, use, transaction circumstances, etc. of goods. However, the similarity of designated goods shall be determined in accordance with the theory of lawsuit. However, it shall be deemed as similar goods in light of the function, use, transaction situation, etc. of the applicant trademark of this case, which is the designated goods of the trademark of this case, and the reduction of tobacco, which is the designated goods of the cited trademark, as the designated goods of the cited trademark of this case, shall be deemed as similar goods. The original

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