Whether this case’s trademark and the cited trademark “Le” are similar (negative)

This trademark is composed of the two trademarks in English and Korean. On the other hand, the cited trademark is marked as "Le" in English, and there is a difference between whether the second two trademarks are different and indicated in Korean, and the overall appearance is easily distinguishable, and the latter is called "Le", and the latter is called "Le", and the latter is difficult to see any specific concept, and the latter is a name "Le", so it is difficult for the latter to see any specific concept, and thus, the latter is not similar. Therefore, even if the cited trademark is widely known to each country of the world, the two trademarks are not similar. Therefore, even if the cited trademark is widely known to each country of the world, it is unlikely to mislead, mislead, cause confusion, or cause consumers about the origin or quality of the goods.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 1, 200

Jinok

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office 87Hun-Ba57 decided May 31, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

As to the ground of appeal by claimant,

According to the reasoning of the original decision, when preparing for the trademark in this case and the cited trademark, the court below held that the former is composed of English and Korean as "Le" in the appearance, and there is a difference between the latter and the latter's two trademarks in English, and the latter's appearance is easily distinguishable from the latter's appearance, while the latter's name is called "Le" in the name "Le", the latter's name is called "Le", and it is difficult for the latter to see any specific concept in the concept, and the latter's name is marked "Le", and the latter's name is hard to see the latter's name, so it is difficult for the latter to see the latter's name in the sense that there is no similar concept, and even if the cited trademark is widely known or well-known in each country, there is no concern that the trademark in this case may cause misconception, confusion, or confusion among consumers (see the above judgment of the court below, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 198Hu18487, Nov. 16, 1987).

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)