[1] The case holding that the trademark "U SOLO ASCITRO" is "POLO" on the grounds that the trademark "USO ASOC" is not recognized as the Pool Games Association in our country

[2] The case holding that the term "U SOLO ASCITRON" is identical to the cited trademark "POLO BY LALPH LAUREN" and the cited trademark "POLO" as an essential part of the cited trademark, and it constitutes only the cited trademark of consumers since the cited trademark is easily connected with the cited trademark due to its well-known and low-knownness

[1] The case holding that it is difficult to recognize distinguishability since the trademark "USO ASO ASCITRN" was reported by ordinary consumers or traders in our country, and the part "US" in its constituent part and "ASCITRO" part "AS" as the word "ASOOO" as the word "OOO" part since it is widely used as a conspicuous geographical name or organization, etc.

[2] The case holding that the trademark "USO ASCITRON" is an essential part of the registered trademark "POOO" and the cited trademark "POL BY LAREN" is not a combination of 'POLO' and 'RAALPH LUREN' with 'PELO' and 'LAALPHHL' cannot be deemed as a combination of two parts, and these parts are recognized as having an equal distinctive character among the general public, and these parts can be briefly called and conceptualized by the general practice of the trade sector where both trademarks tend to be called and conceptualized, and in such a case, both trademarks are identical with their names and concepts, so it is difficult for general consumers to understand or confuse the source of goods, and thus, it is difficult for them to cite the registered trademark or those similar to those of the above general consumers to recognize or confuse the source of goods, and thus, they can easily be cited by the above trademark or those similar to those of the above general consumers.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 and 11 of the Trademark Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu894 delivered on November 22, 1996 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu412 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1111) Supreme Court Decision 97Hu334 delivered on August 29, 197 (Gong199Ha, 2899)

further Cambodia, L.P. (Attorneys Long-ro et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

E. E. E. E. H. Rocophal (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Yellow-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 94Na193 dated February 26, 1997

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below revealed that the registered trademark of this case is the English name of the "U SOLO ASO AOO" (registration No. 1 omitted) of the "UPOOOO" under the U.S. L. L.A. L. 1, 193 for promoting, holding, supervising, etc. Pool games, and its holder is a subsidiary of the U.S. Pool Association established to exercise exclusive right on commercial use of the trademark of the U.S. Pool Association as a U.S. Republic of Korea, its trademark registration number No. 7, and it is not reasonable to cite the registered trademark of this case as a trademark registration number No. 1, 1993 [No. 1, 1993], and it is not reasonable to cite the registered trademark of this case as a trademark registration number No. 5 (No. 1, 298) and No. 1, 195].

However, in accordance with records and relevant laws, the general consumers or traders in our country report the registered trademark of this case to the public, and there is no person who is recognized as the Luxembourg Games Association. According to the general practices of the trade sector that tend to be interpreted, since the term "U S" part among its constituent parts and "ASOCITRN" part means a conspicuous geographical name or organization, etc., it is difficult to recognize its distinctiveness. Therefore, its essential part is 'POLO' part, and the quoted trademark (2) part can not be said to be a combination of 'PELO' part with 'RALPHHHREN' part in the trade area, and it cannot be said that it can be said that the trademark of this case is easily recognized as having an equal distinctiveness in the trade area and that the general consumers can easily cite or confuse the trademark of this case with the trademark of this case when it is likely that all consumers can easily cite or confuse the trademark of this case with the trademark of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Articles 7 (1) 7 and 11 of the Trademark Act, and it is obvious that the registered trademark of this case was affected by the decision of the court below since it was clearly that the registered trademark of this case is the Luxembourg Association and is not identical to the cited trademark under the erroneous premise that it is observed only in a divisible manner, and that it is not a trademark that is likely to mislead consumers with respect to the origin of goods. Therefore, the petition of appeal pointing this out has merit

Therefore, the decision of the court below 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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)