(a) Registration of a trademark, which is not similar to a well-known or well-known trademark, but which is recognized as having easy or closely related to well-known trademarks, goods, etc. (negative);

B. Whether the registered trademark is similar to the cited trademark (negative)

A. Article 9(1)10 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) aims to prevent confusion or confusion about the origin of well-known or well-known goods, business, and source. Thus, even if the trademark itself is not similar to another person's trademark used for well-known or well-known goods, etc., compared with the composition, concept, etc. of both trademarks, even if it is deemed that the trademark is easily connected with the goods, etc. using another person's trademark or trademark or it is closely related to another person's trademark or goods, and thus, such trademark may not be registered as it falls under the above provision.

B. The registered trademark “g 1” is composed of English letters on the lower side of the city with which diagrams such as “Y 3” can be connected vertically to the upper end, and the cited trademark “g 2” consists of two trademarks which combine the figures such as “g 3” in the original as a whole, and the two trademarks are not similar from the overall perspective, and even if they compare the cited trademark with the cited trademark whose shapes are recognized remarkably among consumers, it is not deemed that the cited trademark or goods using the cited trademark are easily connected with the cited trademark or goods thereof, or that there is no close relation with the cited trademark or goods thereof, even if they are used for the same designated goods of the same kind, there is no concern to cause confusion or confusion with ordinary consumers or traders as to the origin of goods.

Article 9 (1) 10 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Hu180,181 delivered on August 18, 1987 (Gong1988,846) 89Hu2281 delivered on September 28, 1990 (Gong1990,2167)

샤넬(소시에떼아노님) 소송대리인 변리사 황의만

Appellants

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 91Dao84 dated December 21, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined in accordance with the objective, overall, and separate observation of the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same or similar goods, and at any time, whether there is a concern for ordinary consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the origin of goods among the goods (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu100 delivered on August 14, 1992). Further, Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a trademark that is likely to cause confusion with the goods of another person which are remarkably recognized among consumers. This is aimed at preventing confusion and confusion with the goods of another person, which is widely recognized or well-known or well-known goods and source. Thus, even if the trademark itself does not correspond to those of another person's trademark used for the goods of the same or well-known goods, the trademark itself constitutes a declaration of origin of goods and thus, it cannot be mistaken or confused with the trademark or goods of another person, and thus, it cannot be seen that the trademark or goods of another person are easily connected with the trademark or goods of another person.

However, according to the records, the registered trademark "G 1" was applied on February 17, 1989 and registered on June 7, 1990, and the designated goods are eight goods, such as leathers, shoess, and shoess, and the cited trademark "G 2" was applied on September 28, 197 and registered on November 3, 198 after August 7, 197, and registered on November 3, 198. The designated goods are 12 goods, such as leathers, golfs, sandbros, etc., of the product classification No. 27. The trademark of this case is not closely related to the above goods or the cited trademark "G 3," and it is not closely related to the goods or the goods of this case, which are composed of English letters with the same diagrams as "g 3," and it is not closely related to the goods or the goods of this case by comparing them with the trademark of the same kind and the goods of this case.

The original adjudication is based on the comparison of the registered trademark of this case with the cited trademark itself, and there is an error in the infringement of intellectual property registration by determining that the above two trademarks are not similar. However, as a result, the above illegality does not constitute a ground to reverse the original adjudication, and there is no ground to hold that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles, etc. in the original adjudication.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)