[1] Whether "a trademark "the plant is similar" and "the plant is similar" at the beginning of publication (affirmative)

[2] Whether a trade name, including a trade name, should be observed as a whole (negative)

[1] The portion of "(s) broadcasts of the species" of the applied trademark "(s) and the portion of "is compared to the beginning of publication of books" of the cited trademark registered in the application trademark "(s)" and the portion of "is widely used in order to indicate the type and the type of business of the broadcasting company and the company showing the publishing company," thus, both trademarks are weak in distinguishability. Accordingly, both trademarks are so similar as to be "the species" and "O second" from the perspective of ordinary consumers or traders.

[2] A trade name including a trade name shall not be observed all times as a whole, including a trade name.

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1155 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 539), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu678 delivered on December 23, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 678), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1671 delivered on February 17, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1471), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1012 delivered on February 27, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1116)

C. Papum Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na1959 decided October 30, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the term "the main trademark of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the main trademark") and "the original trademark of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the main trademark") which is earlier applied and registered and the cited trademark "the original trademark of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the cited trademark") shall be compared to the original trademark of this case, "the main trademark" and "the main trademark" and "is widely used to indicate the type of the broadcasting company and the type of the business that indicate the publishing company, and thus, the main trademark is "the main trademark" and "O second". Accordingly, if both trademarks are extremely similar to each other from the perspective of ordinary consumers or traders, and if both trademarks are used together for the same designated goods, then the registration of the main trademark shall be deemed similar to each other, and if both trademarks are used together for the same designated goods, it shall be deemed that there is a possibility of misconception and confusion under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the original decision rejecting the registration of the original trademark is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, or insufficient reasoning as pointed out in the arguments.

Since a trade name including a trade name is called a trade name including a trade name, it cannot be observed at all times including a trade name, the argument that is inconsistent with this cannot be accepted, and since the precedents of party members cited in the grounds of appeal conflict with those of this case, it is inappropriate to invoke this case. All the arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)