[1] The case holding that "2566" among the registered trademark "BE 2566" does not constitute a common name as a container's standard marking or a designated product's standard, form, or quantity labelling

[2] The case holding that "PB 2566" belongs to the scope of the right of "BE 2566" of the registered trademark

[1] The case holding that the registered trademark "BE 2566" derived from the model name of the "BE" and the "BE" of a specific size among the blive equipment of various containers manufactured and sold by a specialized container manufacturer and its parts combined with the four figures among the "BE" and the blive equipment of the company's name, and thus, it is irrelevant to the length and size of the above blivek as the number "2566" was derived from the trademark marked in order to facilitate the identification of the goods between the goods and the own goods, but it cannot be deemed that the above blivek's blivek's blivek's blivek's blives' blives' blives' blives' blives' blives's blives'

[2] The case holding that the registered trademark "BE 2566" and "PB 2566" are all combined trademarks consisting of Romans and Arabic numbers, and both trademarks can be separated and observed, and all of which can be referred to as "2566" only by the part "256," and in such a case, both trademarks are similar to each other if they are observed in a general consumer's perspective by the same name and concept as the name and concept are identical, and they may cause misconceptions or confusions with the origin of goods if they are used together.

[1] Articles 6(1)1, 6(1)3, and 75 of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 6(1)1, 6(1)3, and 75 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu252 delivered on September 24, 1996 (the same purport) and Supreme Court Decision 96Hu269 delivered on September 24, 1996 (the same purport)

Korean Blux Location (Patent Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

PakistanS Korea Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Hong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94Na283 dated December 29, 1995

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, the registered trademark of this case (registration number 1 omitted) 2566 "BE 256" is derived from the model name of "BE" and "BE 256", which is the specialized container manufacturer, which is composed of 152 meters in length, 34 meters in the outer diameter of the tubes, 3.2 meters in diameter of the tubes, 27.6 meters in inner diameter and 27.6 meters in height, and 27.6 meters in size, which are the weak party to the above company's name, combined with the "BE" and four figures in order to facilitate the identification of each product between the other goods or the self-products. However, the above "256" number is irrelevant to the length or size of the above Brazil, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above domestic container's name or size constitutes a common container label or a specific quantity of the designated goods indicated as such.

The court below erred in failing to render any judgment as to the assertion of the respondent, who is a trademark with the ordinary name, size, shape, or quantity display of the designated goods, and thus has no distinguishability. However, since the above registered trademark is distinctive as above, it is obvious that such mistake does not affect the result of the trial decision, the ground of appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, the respondent may know that the trademark of this case, "PB 2566", the mark of this case, is used as a trademark, and the trademark of this case and the trademark of this case, "PB 2566", all of the trademark of this case, is composed of the Roman and Arabic number, and if the trademark of this case and the trademark of this case are separately observed as a combination with each constituent part, it does not constitute a new concept as a result of the combination, and it does not form a new concept, so both trademarks can be separately observed. For a simple and swift transaction, both trademarks can be deemed as a combination with "2566" only, and both trademarks can be conceptualized and conceptualized. In such a case, both trademarks are identical with the name and concept, and if all of them are observed from the perspective of ordinary consumers, it is similar to each other, and if the trademark is used as a combination with the container, speed, etc. of the designated goods, it is likely to cause confusion to the general consumers as to the source of goods.

The fact-finding and judgment of the court below to the above purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no ground for all arguments.

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.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)