Whether the trademark “lock +L.L.Ban” and “BE” are similar (affirmative)

In comparison with the applied trademark "l.L.Bean" and the cited trademark "BE" registered prior to registration, both trademarks include "BEN" as the main part, and are similar to the appearance, and in the name, the applied trademark can be called "ELLL", "elel" or "h" only, and the quoted trademark can be called "hye" or "hye" only, and in light of today's commercial customs requiring simple rapid delay, both trademarks can be called the same as "hye", and thus, both trademarks can be called the same.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 97Hu1863 delivered on April 14, 1998 (Gong1997Ha, 3863), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2412 delivered on March 12, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 1363), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2412 delivered on March 12, 199 (Gong199Sang, 672)

L. L. L.L. L. R.D., (Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 97Na601 dated December 31, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below affirmed the decision of the court below that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") can be referred only to as 'LLI", 'LI' or 'LI' or 'LI', and the cited trademark (trademark No. 1 omitted) registered with the trademark of this case (trademark No. 1 omitted) and the cited trademark of this case (trademark No. 2 omitted) and the cited trademark of this case (trademark No. 2 omitted), both trademarks include "BEN" as the main part, and the trademark of this case can be referred to as 'LI", 'LI' or 'I' or 'LI' or 'I', and the cited trademark can be referred to as 'I' or 'LI' or 'I', 'I' or 'I', 'I', in light of today's commercial customs demanding simple rapid, since both trademarks are identical only to 'BEN', which is similar to both trademarks.

Although the reasoning of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, the court below's decision that both trademarks are similar trademarks as a whole is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks, such as arguments, etc.

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

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)