[1] Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

[2] Whether each of the designated goods is similar to the "MIPS" and "MIPS" (affirmative)

[3] Criteria for determining whether a trademark is a technical (technical) trademark under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

[4] The case holding that "MIPS" does not constitute a technical (technical) trademark under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, which is a trademark, such as a computer diskette, computer magnetic tape, computer magnetic disc, computer magnetic disc, computer magnetic disc, etc.

[5] Whether the registration of a trademark similar to the pre-registered trademark is allowed where the adjudication on invalidation of the pre-registered trademark becomes final and conclusive (negative)

[1] Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined by whether there is a possibility of misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods in trade, on the basis of an objective, overall, and comparative observation of the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods, and on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel about the trademark. Even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible to avoid confusion as to the origin clearly, the trademark cannot be deemed similar if it can avoid confusion as a whole, but if it is easy for ordinary consumers to mistake or confuse because the name or concept is similar even if one of the different parts is similar, it shall be viewed as a similar trademark.

[2] The trademark "MIPOS" and "MIPS" are similar trademarks that may cause mistake or confusion among consumers if they are used for each identical or similar designated product.

[3] Whether a trademark is approved solely with a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act in a common way shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark and the common quality, efficacy, use, and trade society of the designated goods in question. However, the meaning of a trademark shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, and the common quality, efficacy, and use of the designated goods in question. The meaning of the trademark shall be determined directly and indirectly by ordinary consumers, and it shall not be subject to consideration that a general consumer can report it, examine it, or find it in advance, so that it can only be known. Such determination shall also be determined on the basis of ordinary consumers, unless the designated goods are required and traded by experts.

[4] The case holding that since the cited trademark "MIPS" among the parts of the cited trademark "MIPS" is a word with the meaning of the unit indicating the rate of linkage processing of a computer, or it cannot be viewed that the cited trademark constitutes a technical trademark indicating the nature, quality or use of the designated goods in a common way as long as the cited trademark does not find or know prior to the examination, and it cannot be viewed that the cited trademark constitutes a technical trademark indicating the nature, quality or use of the cited goods in a common way, since the cited trademark's designated goods such as computer diskettes, computer magnetic tape, computer magnetic disc, computer magnetic disc, computer magnetic disc, and computer ractic disc, which are all the goods related to the computer, cannot be viewed as a product directly related to the "MIPS" or the unit, since the cited trademark cannot be seen as a product directly related to the computer system's processing speed or the unit.

[5] In determining whether a trademark applied for registration constitutes a trademark similar to a prior registered trademark under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, unless a trial for invalidation of registration of the prior registered trademark has become final and conclusive, the invalidation of registration of the prior registered trademark or the registration of a trademark similar to the prior registered trademark cannot be allowed by denying the status as the prior registered trademark.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [3] Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act / [4] Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act / [5] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1692 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2272), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1692 delivered on April 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1406), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2026 delivered on May 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1766), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3050 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 848) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu170 delivered on February 10, 195 (Gong195Sang, 1338), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu1969 delivered on December 12, 197 (Gong1995Hu939599 delivered on September 29, 195)

Sluria Co., Ltd. (Law Firm KCEL, Attorneys Kim Sejong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 96Na1841 dated June 30, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether there is a concern that ordinary consumers or traders may mislead or confuse the source of goods in trade by observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods objectively, comprehensively, in a separate and separate manner, based on the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel the trademark. Even if one of the appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible to avoid the confusion of the source clearly as a whole, it shall not be deemed a similar trademark, but if it is easy for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse the source because the name, name, and concept are similar to each other (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Hu64, May 26, 1995; 95Hu1692, Apr. 9, 196; 97Hu2026, May 22, 1998).

In addition, the issue of whether a trademark is approved solely with a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of goods under Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act in a common way shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark and the common quality, efficacy, use, and the circumstances of the trade society, etc. of the designated goods. However, the meaning of a trademark shall be determined objectively by taking into account the concept of the trademark, and the common quality, efficacy, use, and circumstances of the trade society, etc. of the designated goods. The meaning of the trademark shall be determined directly and indirectly by ordinary consumers, and it shall not be subject to consideration that a general consumer can report the trademark, see it, or that a report can only be made after finding it. Such determination shall also be determined on the basis of ordinary consumers, unless the designated goods are required and traded by experts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Hu1770, Feb. 10, 1995; 97Hu396, Dec. 12, 1997).

In light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, it is possible for the court below to see that the original trademark "MIP" (designated goods : diskettes, disks, cards, tapes, workshops, monitors, computers, telephones, portable telecommunications machines and equipment, recording machines and equipment, (application number omitted), hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") on June 18, 1987 and the "MIPS" registered prior application of another person registered on December 7, 1988 [MIPS: the designated goods : diskettes, computer magnetic tapes, computer magnetic disks, computer magnetic disks, computer magnetic disks, (registration number omitted), hereinafter referred to as the "registered trademark" : if there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to goods similar to those of the original trademark - the trademark - which is identical or similar to those of the original trademark - which are identical or similar to those of the original trademark - which are identical or similar to those of the original trademark - which has no effect on the original trademark - which can be cited.

In addition, among the parts of the cited trademark, the word "MIPS" has the meaning of the unit which indicates the speed of processing the computer's smoke, as pointed out in the ground of appeal. However, in light of the general consumers' attention as to each designated goods of the cited trademark which is not a computer expert or a computer specialized trader, the cited trademark cannot be viewed as forming a concept in a direct manner unless the cited trademark is found or reviewed in advance. Further, the cited trademark's designated goods of the cited trademark can not be viewed as a product directly related to the processing speed of the computer system which is marked as "MIPS" or the unit of the cited trademark, as long as the cited trademark's designated goods are all goods related to the computer, but it cannot be concluded that the cited trademark is a technical trademark whose nature, quality, or use of the designated goods is usually used, and as long as the cited trademark is determined as a trademark similar to the cited trademark under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, it cannot be said that the trademark's registration has no influence on the invalidation of the registered trademark registration or its registration.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)