Whether the trademark "Louis Fraud" and "lus household" are similar to the trademark "Liuis Fraud"

The applied trademark “Luis Fraud” cannot be seen as a series of indivous trademarks to the extent that it can be separated and observed in terms of its composition. Therefore, in light of the practice of the transaction system that requires a prompt and rapid assessment, it is more likely to be called “Luis” only in front of the transaction system that requires a “Luis”. In this case, considering the level of foreign language of the general consumers of the Republic of Korea, there is more possibility that the term “Luis” in English-type “lus” rather than “lus” in French-type, when considering the level of foreign language of the general consumers of the Republic of Korea, there is a concern that if both trademarks are used for the designated goods identical or similar to the abbreviation and name of “lus household”, which is a prior-registered trademark, there is a concern that general owners or traders

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Shets et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee et al.

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na1130 dated June 25, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 of the applicant are also examined.

A trademark is not necessarily named and conceptualized by the name or pattern of the entire constituent part at all times, but can be briefly named by only a part of each constituent part unless it is naturally indivisible if it is observed separately from each constituent part to the extent that it is not natural and, if it is possible to think at least two names from one trademark, if one of them is deemed identical or similar to another's trademark, the two trademarks are similar.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that since the trademark "Luis Fercod" cannot be seen as a series of divisible trademarks to the extent that it can be separated and observed in its composition by considering its constituent condition, it can be deemed as a "Luis" only in front of the transactional practice requiring prompt and rapid operation, and it is more likely that it can be called "Luis" in the preceding part of the transactional practice requiring prompt operation. In this case, considering the level of foreign language of the general consumers of the Republic of Korea, it is more likely that the trademark "Luis Fercod" can be called as "Llus" rather than "Llus" in the English language type, so if both trademarks are used for the designated goods identical or similar to the abbreviation and name of "Llus household" which is the trademark cited in the prior registration, there is a concern that the general owner or trader might mislead the source of goods, so the decision rejecting the registration of the original trademark by applying Article 7 (1) 7 of

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the similarity of trademarks or the judgment on the essential part, as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.In theory, even if the original trademark was made in the name of human performance and thus it cannot be separated and recognized, the main part is not the "Luis" part, but the "Luis" part, which is not the "Luis" part, but the "Luis" part, which is not the "Luis" part, and it cannot be similar to the cited trademark, because it is called the "Luis" part, which is not the "Luis" part, which is the name, and it cannot be seen as similar to the cited trademark, or it is difficult for ordinary consumers in Korea to expect that the original trademark was created in French language, and it is not recognized as separate from the name trademark, or that only the "Ferurd" part, which is

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)