A. Criteria for determining similarity of designated goods

(b) Whether the applicant trademark “” is similar to skiings, golfs, sludges, ston goods, and products such as products designated in the cited trademark “”, which are the designated goods of “”

A. The classification of goods under Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration, and does not define the scope of similarity of goods. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the goods are identical or similar to the goods in the same kind on the basis that they belong to the same classification of goods. Whether the designated goods are identical or similar to the designated goods should be determined in accordance with the transactional norms by taking into account the quality, form, purpose of use

B. Both the designated goods of the applied trademark “” and the cited trademark “” belong to the category No. 43 of the product classification list under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act. However, in light of the quality, shape, use and transaction of the goods, such as those produced by the designated goods of the applied trademark, skiing ground, skiing ground, skiing ground, or golf ground locks, the designated goods of the two trademarks cannot be readily concluded to be identical or similar in terms of trade norms, even in light of the quality, shape, use and transaction circumstances of the goods, such as the goods of the applied trademark, which are the designated goods of the trademark, are produced by the specialized enterprise of the sports equipment and are traded at the ordinary sports area or the door room.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1178 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991,1289) 91Hu35 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991,175) 92Hu1793 delivered on May 12, 1991 (Gong1992,1867) 92Hu1745 delivered on February 26, 1993 (Gong193,1087) 92Hu2106 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong193,1712)

Attorney Ahn Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 193.3. 31. 1993Na2069 Decision

The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for Appeal.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney of the applicant are examined.

The court below determined to the effect that the trademark " " " as the designated goods" is similar to the trademark " as the designated goods, such as a skiing plate, skiing ground, skiing ground, skiing ground, skiing ground, tezet, tennis practice machine, sadtontonton pocket book, kicock, golf ground cocks, etc., of the product classification No. 43 as the designated goods, and the cited trademark " as the cited trademark " as the designated goods are similar to the trademark " as the main trademark and the cited trademark belong to the category No. 43 as the main trademark and the cited trademark belong to the category No. 3 (Physical Zone) and is generally considered to belong to the same kind of goods, and thus, if the two similar trademarks are used as the designated goods, it would cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods, and thus, it cannot be registered pursuant to Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

However, the classification of goods under Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration, and does not define the scope of similarity of goods (Article 10(2) of the same Act). Thus, it cannot be readily determined that the goods belong to the same kind of product as the classification of goods. The same and similar kind of designated goods should be determined in accordance with the trade norms in consideration of the quality, shape, use, circumstances of transaction, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1178, Mar. 27, 1991; 91Hu35, May 28, 1991; 91Hu1793, May 12, 1992; 91Hu1793, May 12, 1992; 2000Da1793, Feb. 12, 2007).

Nevertheless, the court below held that the original trademark is similar to the cited trademark of another person, which is the trademark of another person based on the earlier application, and its designated goods are similar, and thus, it is not possible to obtain registration under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by failing to properly examine the original decision, or by misapprehending the legal principles on "the same or similar goods" under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the decision of trial. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)