Whether similarity exists between trademark "EASEIN" and "K-SEIN"

Whether or not the similarity of a trade name under the Trademark Act is not based on a theoretical reasonable review, but on the basis of whether the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks may be observed in a direct and overall manner, and from the perspective of the average person, it is possible to cause confusion among each product. In determining the similarity of a trade name under the Trademark Act, even though the trademark "EASEIN" used by the respondent means that it is "one" on the same side, even though it is said that the trademark "one" is used by the respondent, it falls under the category of a similar trademark that is likely to be mistaken for all the product of the same company as the product of the applicant.

Articles 36 and 35 of the Trademark Act

1961.12.28. 선고 4294특상1 판결 (판례카아드 6648호 판결요지집 상표법(구) 제5조(3)1773면) 1964.6.11. 선고 63후27 판결 (판례카아드 4296호, 대법원판결집 12①행71 판결요지집 상표법(구) 제5조⑪1774면) 1964.9.8. 선고 63후37 판결 (판례카아드 4299호 판결요지집 상표법(구) 제5조(12,13)1774면) 1968.11.5. 선고 68후35 판결 (판례카아드 4466호, 대법원판결집 16③행27 판결요지집 상표법(구) 제5조(29)1776면)

Applicant

Korea Music Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Daegu District Court of First Instance (74Ka315)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The decision of provisional disposition made on January 15, 1974 by the Daegu District Court 73Ka4799 and by the Daegu District Court 73Ka4799 shall be approved with respect to the application case for provisional disposition against the use of trademark between the applicant and the respondent.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the respondent.

On January 15, 1974, an applicant filed an application with the respondent for a provisional disposition prohibiting the use of a trademark with the Daegu District Court No. 73Ka4799, and the said court accepted the application on the condition that the applicant deposit 200,000 won as a guarantee, and that “the respondent shall not use the trademark of this- Schlage (EASEIN) or sell or disseminate amnos using the trademark. The purport of the above paragraph (1) entrusted by the applicant shall be announced in an appropriate manner.” There is no dispute between the parties, and the applicant shall not be two to five evidence No. 3 of this case without dispute. According to each of the above statements, the applicant shall not be deemed to have filed an application with the representative director of the Korea Pianian Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Ltd., on January 15, 196, the applicant shall not be deemed to have registered the trademark of this case as the designated trademark of this case as the applicant No. 1075 of the Patent Act No. 10735, Dec. 17, 197, Ga19797.

The applicant's attorney argues that the applicant's trademark is infringed upon the applicant's trademark right by using the trademark "EIN" in English unless the applicant is entitled to use the trademark "EIN" as the trademark holder of the above Kenya-SIN, but the applicant's trademark "IEIN" is identical to that of the applicant's trademark "IEIN", and the respondent's representative is entirely separate from the applicant's trademark "Is-Is" and it is not similar to the other applicant's trademark in terms of its appearance or meaning, so it is not likely that the applicant's trademark "Isk-Is" is identical to the above Respondent's trademark "Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk-Isk's own testimony.

However, the respondent provided that the applicant has leased each trademark to another company for the purpose of this case. Accordingly, this case's provisional disposition is without merit because it is argued that there is no need to preserve the trademark right. Accordingly, in full view of each of the statements in evidence Nos. 3,5,13-1, 2, 14 and 19, the applicant except the applicant company's non-applicant's factory was transferred from the above non-applicant company before the successful bid to the respondent, and the applicant used the trademark as the applicant's name, but the applicant did not use the trademark, and the non-applicant company continued to manufacture the trademark and sell the trademark under this case's 19-7 trademark right's trademark right's non-applicant's trademark right's non-applicant's non-applicant's trademark right's non-applicant's non-applicant's trademark right's non-applicant's non-applicant's trademark right's non-applicant company's non-applicant's trademark right's non-applicant company's non-applicant company's non-applicant company's trademark right's non-appellant of this case No. 97.

Therefore, the decision of provisional disposition of the entry in the purport of the claim cited by the applicant's objection shall be revoked and the application for provisional disposition shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the decision of provisional disposition is just and the appeal by the applicant is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95 and Article 89 of the same Act with respect to the burden

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)