Whether “the trademark and the cited trademark” are similar (affirmative)

In today's commercial transactions requiring simple and swiftness as a part having no distinctive character as an ordinary name of designated goods, "Il" in the applied trademark " shall be referred to as "Ill" as a common name of the designated goods, and the cited trademark picture shall also be referred to as "Illl" for the same reason. Thus, if a trademark similar to the name is used together for each designated goods, it is likely to cause mistake or confusion of the place of goods delivery to ordinary consumers or traders, and both trademarks shall be referred to as "Illl".

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

Supreme Court Decision 87Hu15 Decided September 22, 1987 (Gong1987, 1645) 90Hu359 Decided December 26, 1990 (Gong1991, 639), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1352 Decided March 8, 1991 (Dong)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14488 delivered on May 1, 201

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Na1054 dated June 23, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below presumed that the similarity of a trademark should be determined by the objective, overall, and different observation of the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of product and by the possibility of misconception or confusion among the goods in the transaction. The trademark of this case "in relation to the similarity of trademark "", the trademark of this case can be called "Illll" as "Illl" in the name of "Illl" as "Ill" in the ordinary name of the designated product, so it should be called "Ill" as "Ill" in today's commercial transaction which requires simple and swiftness, and the cited trademark is called "Illl" for the same reason. Thus, if we use the trademark similar to the name as "Ill" together with each designated product, there is a concern of misconception or confusion between ordinary consumers or traders. In light of the records, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the recognition of similarity between the above trademark and the above judgment of the court below.

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 Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)