Whether it is similar to the original trademark and the cited trademark (negative)

Although the trademark " and the cited trademark" are similar in terms of the concept because of the figure in which the trademark " and the cited trademark " are urbanized," the trademark of the original source is externally different from the cited trademark in terms of the figure in the horse, and the name of the original source trademark is read only to be read "fla" or "fla" according to the English name's marking, and there is no probability that the cited trademark itself can be read to be read to the "fla" or "fla" mark, and even if it is read to the "mala" according to the family figure, there is no special name, but it is obvious difference from the original trademark, so even if two trademarks are used to the designated goods, it is not likely that consumers mistake or confuse the origin of goods.

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

The Patent Attorney Na Young-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Na616 dated February 28, 1990

The original adjudication shall be avoided, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office having jurisdiction over the case.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the original trademark is identical or similar to the original trademark, and that if the original trademark is used for the same designated goods as the original trademark, the original trademark may be replaced by the word “FERRI” or “maging horse” or “maging horse” or “maging horse” or the cited trademark shall be replaced by the word “maging horse” or “maging horse” or “maging horse” or “maging horse”, and in terms of the concept, the original trademark shall be recognized as the word “maging horse” or “maging horse”, and that if it is used for the same kind of designated goods, the original trademark shall be recognized as “maging horse” or “maging horse” or “maging horse” or “maging horse” and thus, the latter is likely to mislead or confuse the source of goods.

However, in order to determine whether two or more trademarks are similar to each other, it shall be determined by examining the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark in a whole or separately, and whether there is a risk of misunderstanding or confusion as to the origin of goods. Thus, even if one of the external names, concepts is similar, if a trademark can clearly mislead or avoid confusion as to the origin of goods, it shall not be deemed similar if the trademark as a whole can cause consumers to mistake or confuse as to the origin of goods. According to the records and the original decision, the trademark as to the original trademark and the cited trademark are similar to the cited trademark in terms of the concept because they are urbanized figures, but it is externally different from the cited trademark in terms of the concept. However, the name of the original trademark is read as "Fla" or "Flae" in accordance with its English name, and it is not obvious that there is no probability that the trademark read as "flag" or "flag" mark, and even if it does not cause any special confusion as to the origin of goods, it does not appear that there is any special confusion between the original trademark and the cited trademark itself.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks, since the original trademark is similar to the cited trademark. Therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)