Whether "the applied trademark" is similar to "the items pool scholarship classroom" (affirmative)

The term "the part" and "the scholarship classroom" in each part of the trademark "the cited trademark" are identical to both trademarks as "the item pool" because it is recognized as directly indicating the characteristics of each designated product and thus, the essential part of both trademarks are identical as "the item pool", so if used for each designated product, both trademarks are likely to cause misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of the product.

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

Patent Attorney Tae-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

The appellant of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (Korean Intellectual Property Office) Ruling 90Na282 dated March 5, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

As to the ground of appeal by the applicant's attorney

1. According to the original decision, the cited trademark is a character trademark indicated in the item pool scholarship classroom, and the part in the composition of the original trademark is recognized as directly indicating the characteristics of the designated goods and thus, the essential part of the original trademark is "items" as it is not recognized as distinctive character, and as a scholarship class in the composition of the cited trademark indicates the characteristics of the designated goods, the term "science" indicates the characteristics of the designated goods, and the essential part is also the same as that of the two trademarks, so if both trademarks are used for each of the designated goods, it is recognized that the general consumer or the trader may cause mistake and confusion as to the origin of the goods, and the similarity of the trademark is determined individually, and the rejection of the assertion by the applicant, regardless of the existence of the trademark which is newly registered and still in existence, has been rejected.

The above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or omission of judgment or incomplete hearing.

2. According to Articles 50(1) and 16(2) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 190), where an appeal against a ruling of rejection finds the grounds for rejection and other reasons for rejection, the appeal against a ruling of rejection shall notify the applicant of the reasons for rejection and give him/her an opportunity to submit a written opinion by designating a period for submission of the written opinion. However, according to the records, the reasons for the ruling of rejection and the appeal shall be the same as both trademarks compared to the original trademark and the cited trademark, and thus, the applicant need not be given an opportunity to state his/her opinion. Therefore, there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho