Whether the applied trademark and the pre-registered trademark are similar (affirmative)

The applied trademark " cannot be deemed an integral combination of "BO" and "Semane", and if the name "Seman" and "Semane" are similar to those of "Semane" and the registered trademark "Semane" are used for the same designated goods, it is likely to cause mistake and confusion of the source of goods in the transaction of goods.

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

Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1066 Decided December 22, 1989 (Gong1990, 468) 89Hu2212 Decided May 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 1374)

Ganobio - Instrust Amblus Ltd. et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1724 dated August 19, 1991

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.

1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the original trademark application should be rejected pursuant to Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990) since the title of the cited trademark is similar to that of the cited trademark, if the trademark is used for each designated product, it cannot be ruled that the ordinary consumer or the trader might cause mistake or confusion as to the place of goods, and that the original trademark application should be rejected pursuant to Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990).

2. Examining the record and comparison, this original trademark " cannot be deemed to be a single combination of "Bio" and "Garde" as an indivisible combination. The judgment below that if the title of "Sarde" and "Sarde" are similar to those of "Sarde" and the cited trademark are used for the same designated goods, it may cause mistake or confusion of the source of goods in a product transaction. There is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the trademark law, or by misapprehending the facts, as alleged in the arguments.

In addition, even if the cited trademark I and the cited trademark II are similar to each other, it does not affect the registration of the cited trademark II in determining the similarity between the cited trademark I and the cited trademark I, so the court below did not examine and determine the relationship with the above cited trademark II, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or lack of reasoning, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no other unlawful grounds for the argument. All arguments are without merit.

3. 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.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice) Lee Jae-sung Kim Jae-sung