A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

(b) The similarity between the "TRIPAREN" and the "TRIPAMOL", the main trademark of which is the trademark;

(a) The similarity of trademarks should be determined by whether there are concerns that two trademarks used for the same or similar goods may cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods in the trade, by observing in an objective, overall, and different manner on the three pages of their appearance, name, and concept, and at any one location.

B. The appearance of the trademark is similar in light of the name and concept of “TRIPAREN” and the cited trademark, the main trademark of which is the trademark, to the extent that there are other TRIPAMOL car but are similar in light of the name and concept.

Article 9(1) of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Hu98 delivered on September 24, 1985, 86Hu71 delivered on November 25, 1986, and 86Hu188 and 189 delivered on September 22, 1987

Attorney Kim Gyeong-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 87Na201 dated January 30, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

With respect to the grounds of appeal by the applicant's attorney, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether the two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are likely to cause mistake or confusion as the source of the goods in the transaction in terms of objective, overall, and separation from three aspects of their appearance, name, and concept (see Supreme Court Decision 84Hu98 delivered on September 24, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 86Hu71 delivered on November 25, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 86Hu18,189 delivered on September 22, 1987; 86Hu18,189 delivered on September 22, 1987).

The main trademark of this case is "TRIPAREN" in English, and the cited trademark is "TRIPALOL" in English and it can be known that the cited trademark is a character trademark which combines "TRIPAL" in English with the English and English characters. The two trademarks are different in their appearance from "REN" and "MOL". However, "REN" and "MOL" are merely an ambiguous word which cannot be recognized as a conspicuous concept, and the remaining part is the same as "TRIPA" in the name, and the name is referred as "TTRA", so it is similar to that, and there is no obvious distinction between the two trademarks as names, appearance and concept, objective trademark, trademark concept, overall observation, and thus it is not likely to cause confusion between the general consumer and the designated goods in the transaction. Therefore, it is not likely to cause confusion between the general consumer and the goods.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)