[1] Whether the "electronic assembly card", one of the designated goods of the applied trademark ", and the "e-mail, computer, CD-RM" among the designated goods of the pre-registered trademark "(affirmative)

[2] Where the trademark registration requirements are not satisfied for some designated goods of the applied trademark, measures to be taken

[1] The applicant trademark "electronic assembly card, one of the designated goods" does not have any evidence to regard "ACC card or smart card". Rather, the meaning of the "Electronic assembly card," which is one of the designated goods, of the Korean Intellectual Property Office issuing the Korean Intellectual Property Office, is a plastic card printing and distribution of circuits. It is interpreted that "Twitter or resistance, etc. assembled and line it is connected with pller's inserting or connection on the board, and it is reasonable to see that the aforementioned "Electronic assembly card" is a plastic card that printed and distributes an electronic circuit, and it is reasonable to see that the scope of the "electronic assembly card" used by the producer or user, such as computer, parts of the finished computer, etc., and thus, it is reasonable to see that all of the designated goods of the producer, parts of the finished computer, etc. are directly engaged in the production or distribution of the computer, and thus, it is reasonable to see that all of the designated goods of the producer or user, parts of the computer, etc. using the computer.

[2] Where a trademark for which two or more designated goods are applied is recognized to meet the trademark registration requirements for some designated goods and the remainder of the designated goods do not meet the trademark registration requirements, an application for the entire designated goods shall be made a single decision of refusal unless the correction is made, such as the withdrawal from the designated goods through the correction procedure.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 7 (1) 7 and 23 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1360 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 540)

elcom Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Nam-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

April 16, 2004

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 27, 2003 on the case No. 2003 Won2329 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

[Evidence: Evidence No. 1 to 5, Evidence No. 1 to 1, 2]

A. The applied trademark of this case

(1) Application number: No. 2001-43429

(2) Date of application: September 29, 2001

(3) Marks:

(4) Designated goods: Self-style Tradt cards, electronic assembly cards, self-refrat cards, and self-paid bus cards under Article 6 [Attachment Table 1] [Attachment Table 9] of the Enforcement Rule of the former Trademark Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 146 of December 24, 2001)

(b) Preregistered trademark;

(i) the Prior Registered Trademark 1

(a) Registration number: No. 353142;

(B) Date of application/registration: January 6, 1997

(C) Marks:

(d) Right holder: Kim Young-soo;

(e) Designated goods: CD-TITE containing the books, magazines, pictures, pictures, Californias, merchandise coupons, carbags, recorded tapes (other than music), learning sites, learning models, and learning materials under Article 6 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the former Trademark Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 83 of February 23, 1998).

(ii) the Prior Registered Trademark 2

(a) Registration number: No. 5194766;

(B) Date of application/registration: February 9, 2001/ May 4, 2002

(C) Marks:

(d) Right holder: Mfluxex

(e) Designated goods: Category 9 of the former Product Classification : Videophones, portable telecommunications machines and apparatus, compact disc disc displays (P), CDP, recorded computer software, recorded computer program, electronic pocket book, computer, CD-OM, and portable personal information device (PDA).

C. Reasons for the decision of refusal and the trial decision of this case

On May 23, 2003, the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act on the ground that the trademark applied for the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the prior registered trademark 1, 2 and the name, appearance, and concept.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a petition for a trial seeking the revocation of the above decision of rejection, and the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board reviewed the petition as 2003 Won2329 and dismissed the plaintiff's petition for a trial on November 27, 2003 as follows.

D. Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

Examining the marks of the applied trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark 1 and 2, the appearance of both trademarks is below, but in their names and concepts, the trademark of this case can be separated and observed as part of the English language "M" and "Plus", but each part is simple and commonly used, and there is no distinctive character, so it is not deemed that there is any name or concept on the "shaped figure", and in view of the fact that the English text "Mobard" is used in the Chinese characters, the trademark of this case will be named and conceptualized as "Mplus", and the prior registered trademark 1 and 2 will be conceptualized as "Mplus", and both trademarks are identical.

Examining the designated goods of the two trademarks, the designated goods of both trademarks are similar in terms of general trade in terms of their quality, shape, consumers, etc., taking into account that the computer software recorded "electronic assembly card" among the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case and the "computer-RM" among the designated goods of the registered trademark of this case and the "computer software" in the production process of the "electronic assembly card" not only belongs to the same kind of goods and group, but also the function of the "computer software" can be displayed.

Therefore, the applied trademark of this case is identical with the prior registered trademark 1, 2 and the name and concept, and the designated goods are identical or similar to the prior registered trademark 2 and the designated goods, so it constitutes Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. Grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision

The trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark 2 are completely different from the trademark of this case. The prior registered trademark 2 is called "Mob Card flux", and the prior registered trademark 2 is different from the name "Mflux Mflux." Thus, both trademarks are not similar, and the "electronic assembly card" among the designated goods of the pending trademark of this case is not similar, but is different from the other designated goods of this case because an Arabic chip, an Achip, which is capable of processing a specific franchise by having a microfluor, a card operation system, security lock, and metre, etc., and thus, the trademark of this case is recognized as goods of the same kind as the card, and the credit card seller is also different from the other designated goods of this case, so long as the manufacturer or seller of this case does not function as the designated goods of this case.

(b) Markets:

(1) First of all, the trademark of this case is often used in the upper part of the trademark "MM 2" which is the same as the trademark of this case and the trademark of this case as the trademark "M 2", and the trademark of this case is often used in the middle part of "M 2" which is a combination of so-called "M 2", so it is hard to see that the trademark of this case is "M 2" as a combination of so-called "M 2" and "M 2" which is an integral part of the so-called "M 2" and "M 2" which is an integral part of the so-called "M 2" as the trademark of this case, so it is hard to see that the trademark of this case is "M 2" as a combination of so-called word "M 2" and "M 2" which is an integral part of the so-called word "M 2", and the remaining part of the trademark of this case can not be seen as a combination of two terms "M 2".

(2) Furthermore, the "electronic assembly card" among the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case and the applied trademark 2 is somewhat unclear as to the similarity of the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case. However, the "electronic assembly card" is classified as the designated goods belonging to Category 33 (Electronic Application Machines and Parts) in the classification of goods of the former type. The plaintiff asserts that the "electronic assembly card" is a card called "Ac (IC) card" or " smart card", which is called "Ac(S) card" or "Ac(S)" and has the ability to process a specific franchise chip with microfilms, card operation system, security cards, and meta-chip, and it is different from the producer's registered goods of this case, since it is a card in the form of plastic card, financial service, electronic currency, electronic currency, etc., and consumers are different from the producer's registered goods of this case.

However, according to the records, the "electronic assembly card", one of the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case, does not have any evidence to regard it as 'ACC card' or 'MM card', and rather, according to the 1 through 3 of evidence B, the "EM card" of the Korean Intellectual Property Office is a plastic card with printed and distribution of circuits as to the meaning of 'electronic assembly card' which is one of the designated goods in the Korean Intellectual Property Office issuing "I". Twitter or resistance are assembled and connected to the printing or distribution line, and it can be recognized that the other circuits are connected to the printing or distribution line." Since the above 'Electronic assembly card' is a plastic part printed with an electronic circuit, and it is generally similar to the above 'EM card' or the 'EM-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

(3) Therefore, the applied trademark of this case is similar to the registered trademark 2 and its marks and designated goods in relation to some designated goods. Thus, Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act applies to some designated goods. As such, if two or more designated goods are recognized as meeting the trademark registration requirements for some designated goods and the remaining designated goods do not meet the trademark registration requirements, one decision to reject the application for all designated goods should be made (see Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1360 delivered on December 21, 1993). Thus, the applied trademark of this case cannot be registered as all designated goods. Accordingly, the decision of this case is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the decision of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-hwan (Presiding Judge)