Whether the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark (affirmative)

In comparison with the applied trademark and the cited trademark, the whole appearance of which is less than a certain size, but the cited trademark is merely a symbol of the first letter of the letter flag, and it is difficult to see that its special name or concept has been written from itself, and therefore, it is necessary to see that the letter, which is composed of remarkably raising the figure compared with the figure, is called "Hra" according to its Korean sign. The applied trademark indicated only in English, is similar to the name of the cited trademark if it is called "Hra" or "hrad" as the English letter, and as long as the above two trademarks, which do not have any obvious concept, are memoryd by the name mainly, so long as the name is similar, it is likely to cause confusion and confusion as a whole if they are used together with similar goods, it is a similar trademark.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 355, Feb. 11, 1986) (Law No. 3875, Feb. 11, 1986)

C. C. C. (Patent Attorney Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Na1004 Dated September 29, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Whether two trademarks used in the same or similar goods are similar should be determined depending on whether there is a concern that there may cause mistake or confusion as to the source of goods in terms of trade norms by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept in terms of the appearance, name, and concept. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, if it is easy for them to confuse with each other at the time of observing a similar whole, the words constituting the essential part is similar (see Supreme Court Decision 84Hu70, Dec. 26, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Hu76, Feb. 11, 1986).

According to the records, when the main trademark and the cited trademark B are compared to the cited trademark, the overall appearance of which is less than a size, or the cited trademark is composed of not more than a size, but the figure is merely an expression of the first letter of a letter, and it is difficult to see that the figure itself has a special name or concept from that point of view, it is necessary to form a part of the letter, and it is called as a "hyd" according to its Korean version, and the main trademark indicated only in English shall be called as "hyd", "hyd", etc., unless there are special circumstances to refer otherwise, and thus, if the trademark is called as "hyd" or "hyd", it is similar to the name of the cited trademark, and in all cases, it is not obvious that there is no concept as a trademark, and in particular, it is not a trademark that leads consumers to snow, but it is a similar trademark as a whole, if it is similar to goods.

Although the reasoning of the decision of the court below is somewhat insufficient, the conclusion that the original trademark and the cited trademark are similar to those of the original trademark, and the designated goods are similar to the designated goods so that they cannot obtain the registration of the original trademark is correct. As pointed out in this theory, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Trademark Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles of the Trademark Act, or by

The precedents cited by the theory of the lawsuit are not appropriate in this case.

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.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)