Whether the trademark “Harry Winon” and the trademark “surgic WINSON” are similar (affirmative)

The applied trademark is a character trademark indicated in English as “Harry Wson” and composed of two main parts, so it is recognized that consumers or traders recognize the applied trademark as “Harry” and “Winon” and, in addition, if the trademark is briefly named in today’s product transaction, then it shall be referred to as “harry” and “Winon”. Thus, in title, if two trademarks are used for each designated goods, it is identical to the original trademark “har” registered by the earlier application, it is likely to mislead ordinary consumers or traders as to the source of goods.

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

Supreme Court Decision 92Hu759 delivered on September 25, 1992

nautical nautical nautical Sheston Patent Attorney Choi Woo-hon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1826 Dated March 25, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by the overall, objective, and different observation of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods in terms of appearance, name, concept, etc., and the determination of whether there is a possibility of mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods by ordinary consumers or traders based on the direct perception that they feel with respect to the trademark. The combination trademark consisting of each constituent element of letters, letters, or figures is not necessarily named and conceptualized by the entire constituent part, but can be briefly named, conceptualized, and conceptualized by only part of the constituent part, unless it is an indivisible combination to the extent that it is natural if each constituent element is separately observed, and if it is possible to consider two or more names or concepts from one trademark, the combination shall be similar if it is deemed identical or similar to the other's trademark; and the combination trademark consisting of a combination of the names made by the combination of these trademarks shall be deemed identical or similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu1978, Mar. 16, 1988; 2007Hu197, Aug. 197, 197. 19898; 197.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the original trademark is a character trademark indicating "Harry Wson" (the original judgment is written by mistake as Wson) in English and composed of two main parts of "Harry" and "Winon" and the consumers or traders recognize the original trademark as "Harry" and "Winon," and that the case where the original trademark is briefly named in today's product transaction, and where a consumer or a trader simply intends to use a longer name in today's product transaction, it shall be referred to as a " Harry". Thus, in title, if two trademarks are used for each designated goods, it is likely that ordinary consumers or traders may mislead or confuse the origin of the goods, and there is no error in the judgment of the court below in finding the similarity between the original trademark and the original trademark under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act, on the ground that the cited trademark is similar to the cited trademark registered. In light of the above legal principles, the court below's judgment is justified and there is no such error in the judgment.

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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)