A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

B. Whether the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark which is the prior registered trademark and the cited trademark 2 (affirmative)

A. Whether a trademark is similar should be determined depending on whether the appearance, name, and concept, etc. of two trademarks used in the same or similar goods are likely to be mistaken or confused between the goods in trade by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept, etc. of the two trademarks. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, if the appearance, name, or concept of a trademark is similar to those of the designated goods in the transaction of the designated goods, and it is easy for ordinary consumers or traders to confuse with the trademark, the trademark should be deemed similar.

B. The applied trademark consists of 10 items, such as books, newspapers, and magazines in the category of goods, and the prior registrant trademark 1 and prior registrant trademark 2 are 9 items, such as newspapers and magazines in the category of goods. The applied trademark and the cited trademark are all recognized as having the concept of innate and Roman, namely, the word, as they are all referred to in the sense that the trademark in question and the cited trademark are the same as the word, and thus, they are similar trademarks.

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

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Young-chul and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

further, the Patent Attorney Lee Han-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of New York, a New York State New Copid, Inc., Ltd., Li-gu

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 91Na953 dated October 31, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

As to the ground of appeal by the applicant's attorney

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether the appearance, name, and concept, etc. of two trademarks used in the same or similar goods are objectively, overall, and separately and objectively observe the appearance, name, and concept, etc. of the two trademarks and are likely to mislead or confuse them among the goods in trade. Even if there are different parts among the trademarks, if the appearance, name, or concept of the trademark is similar to those of the designated goods in trade of the designated goods, and it is easy for ordinary consumers or traders to confuse them with similar external appearance, name, or concept (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Hu608, Sept. 24, 1991; 91Hu1786, Apr. 24, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the trademark " which is the original trademark is the original trademark, shall be 10 items, including books, newspapers, and magazines of category 52, and the first registered trademark and the first registered trademark 2 shall be nine items, including newspapers and magazines of category 52, and the first registered trademark and the first registered trademark 2 shall be the designated goods. Thus, the original trademark shall not be registered pursuant to Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 190) since it is referred and recognized as the word, namely, the word, the word, the concept, and the name, and concept are identical, similar, and if used for the same kind of goods, it is likely to cause mistake and confusion in the place of the goods.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that the original trademark and the cited trademark are recognized as having both the idea of the ceiling (Mecheon) that is the word generated by day, and they are referred to in the ceiling, and thus, they constitute a similar trademark is just and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for the argument.

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)