Section 1 (affirmative) of the similarity between the trademark in this case and the cited trademark (affirmative)

The trademark "the cited trademark " and the prior registered trademark" (hereinafter referred to as "B") is highly likely to be referred to as "B" because the trademark " and the trademark " are remarkably different in its appearance or in the shape of the two trademarks," and the cited trademark "B" can be easily read as "B" at the end of the right side of the Do, and it is combined with the part in the English language and can be easily read as "B", and there is a difference in English and Korean language in its title, and both trademarks are recognized as both trademarks as the cost, so both trademarks are likely to be confused, regardless of the difference in appearance.

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

Park Jong-ok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 215 decided March 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below held that the cited trademark "(B) in the original trademark "(B) shape, and the trademark(s) of the claimant(s) is identical to the two trademarks because both trademarks are recognized as the source of cost, and thus there is a possibility of misconception or confusion, regardless of the difference in appearance," and that the trademark's appearance is considerably different from that of "B" because the trademark is a combination of figures and letters written on the right side(s) shape, it is highly likely to be referred to as "B", and the cited trademark can be easily read as "B" due to its combination with the part on the right side(s) of the Do, so it can be easily read as "BUTFY" due to its combination with the part on the part(s) shape(s) shape(s) in English and Korean, and thus, the registration of the trademark in this case is invalid. In light of the records, the court below's determination that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or non-violation of law.

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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)