Whether the application trademark “CLOSD” and the cited trademark “CROSS (S)” are similar (negative)

The trademark applied for the trademark "CLOSD" and the cited trademark which is another person's trademark based on the earlier application are different in its appearance, and in terms of concept, the trademark applied for the trademark is different from the trademark in English as the trademark "slid, closed, closed, closed, closed, or closed, etc.," while the trademark applied for the trademark is different from each other. However, in the name of the trademark applied for the trademark "CLOSD", there are many cases where the trademark applied for the trademark is called "CLD", but in light of the situation of the general trade society, those who are not accurately correct in English are called "CLD", and the cited trademark refers to "C law" as written under the English language, so it is extremely similar to the trademark applied for the trademark as a whole, and it is likely to cause confusion as to the source of goods or consumers if two trademarks are used in the same or similar goods.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Patent Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 88Na142 dated March 22, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant's attorney are examined.

The court below held that, even if the similarity of trademarks is not identical to each other, it should be determined by the method of determining whether there is possibility of mistake or confusion among the goods in one transaction after objectively observing and differently from the appearance, name, and concept of the two trademarks used for the same kind of goods in one transaction. The court below held that, in comparison with the trademark "CLOSD" applied on October 18, 1986 and the trademark "the other person's registered trademark" applied on earlier date, the applicant's trademark "CLOSD" and "the other person's registered trademark" as the trademark "CLOSD", the cited trademark is composed of two parts of the trademark "the other person's English name" as the trademark "the other person's trademark is identical to the other person's English name "the other person's trademark "the other person's trademark is identical to the other person's English name "the other person's trademark "the other person's last trademark is identical to the other person's trademark "the other person's trademark's English name is different from the other person's trademark's trademark "the other person's trademark's trademark's trademark ".".

According to relevant evidence and records, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law in failing to properly examine the original decision. Thus, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal by the applicant is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)