Whether the trademark “Clostridirum butymen T-A” and “” are similar (negative)

Even if the essential parts of this trademark “Clostriad butymen T-A” and the cited trademark “” are “TO-A” and “Sa”, the title of the cited trademark can be read differently from the name of “Sato”, “Doh” or “Sato-A”, and even if it is read to “Sato-do”, it cannot be said to be identical to the name of “Sato-do” because there is a significant difference in the appearance between “Sato-do” and “Sato-do”, and if there is any sign that combines or otherwise leads to a series of Japan, it cannot be said that the word “TO-A” cannot be seen to be identical in terms of general sense in Korea.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of January 13, 1990)

Patent Attorney Kim Gyeong-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Doo-si Doo-si Doo-si Doo-si, Patent Attorney Park Jong-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appellate Trial Office No. 100 decided February 28, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below decided that since the trademark "Clossytridimenmenmen" in the main trademark "Clostridemysimenmen" means the spawn of spawn, the trademark of this case, which is a product related to fire extinguishing medicine, lacks distinctiveness, is recognized as "TO-A", and the trademark "" in the cited trademark " "" in the cited trademark " " " "," as it has no distinctiveness in the cited trademark designated goods, the cited trademark is called as "h" in the cited trademark " "," and the cited trademark " "," in the cited trademark " "," which is also the designated goods, is called as "h" by its English characters, the cited trademark is so different from "h", which is the name of the cited trademark and "h -", and its overall name is extremely similar, and if so, it is extremely similar to the trademark "O-A", the trademark of this case may be used as the designated goods of the same kind and its registration may be invalidated.

However, even if the essential parts of the trademark of this case and the cited trademark are "TO-A" and "B" according to the court below's instruction, the title of the cited trademark shall be read to "Dongia", but the title of this trademark may be read differently from "too", "Doo" or "Bo-A", and the title of this trademark cannot be deemed to be the same as the title of this trademark because there is a significant difference in the appearance between "Doo" and "Doo", and if there is any sign which combines or otherwise makes Japan connected with the mark of Japan, it is difficult to accept the conclusion of the court below that the name of the cited trademark is identical in terms of the concept that "Dongia" is not the same as that of Japan.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the premise that the above two trademarks are similar to each other is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the same and similarity of trademarks, which affected the result of the trial decision, and there is a good reason to point this out.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office having jurisdiction over the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)