The case holding that trademark "Dragon Island, available diagrams" and "Kaman Man, KAIIS MERN" are similar to the trademark "Dragon Island" and "KISISN"

The case holding that the trademark applied for registration can be conceptualized and conceptualized with "KAIIS KON", and the quoted trademark (1), both of which are the combination trademark of letters, letters, or diagrams, and all of which can be separately observed by ordinary consumers, and the trademark applied for registration can be conceptualized and conceptualized with "KISIS", which means "KISER's Korean Korean version," and the quoted trademark (2) can be separated from "DGON" and the cited trademark (1) can be conceptualized and conceptualized only by "Draon", and the quoted trademark (2) can be used as an objective observation of "KISIS" and (2) can be used as the whole in the case where it is separated from "KISIS" and "KISIS" and "ISIS" (1) from the viewpoint of "KISIS" and "KISIS" and "IS" (2) can be used as an objective observation.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1466 delivered on December 2, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1703), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1824 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2124), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1456 delivered on March 8, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1260)

Applicant 1 and one other

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na1019 dated September 24, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicants.

The grounds of appeal by applicants are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of the supplemental appellate brief filed after the expiration of the submission period).

According to the records, since the trademark of this case applied on October 27, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "OEM trademark") is similar to the cited trademark (1 omitted) and the cited trademark (2 omitted), the trademark of this case and the cited trademark (1) (2 omitted) are separated from each other as a combination trademark of letters, letters, or diagrams, and each combination does not lead to a new concept, and it is difficult to see that there is a combination of new trademarks to the extent that it is natural if it is separated and observed, each part of the letters and diagrams can be separated and observed separately from each other. Thus, if the trademark of this case applied on the same date is separated or simplified from one of them for a simple and swift transaction, the trademark of this case can be seen as an "OEM trademark" and the trademark of this case can be seen as an "OEM" and the trademark of this case can be seen as an "OEM" and the trademark of this case can be seen as an "an objective combination or confusion among consumers," and both parts can be seen as an "E".

In addition, the existence of the eligibility for registration of a trademark should be judged individually according to each trademark in relation to the designated goods. Therefore, the mere fact that the trademark registration of a novel related to the name or concept has been made before and after the registration of the cited trademark is not different.

The lower court did not err in misapprehending the legal doctrine on determining similarity of trademarks, such as theory of lawsuit, incomplete hearing, and omission of judgment. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)