Whether or not this is the same as, or similar to, the 'Ngel' and the 'NGEL' of the Main Trademark

The trademark of this source is marked in the upper part of the trademark by crossing the word “Ngel” in Korean, and is marked below the word “Angel” in English. The cited trademark is marked above the upper part in English, and is marked below the word “NGL” in Korean. The two trademarks are identical or similar to each other in Korean and English, and the two trademarks are identical in Korean and English, and the composition or name concept of characters are identical and considered as identical in Korean and English, and the designated goods using the above two trademarks are also identical in Korean and English. In the case of the goods classification of this source trademarks, the trademark is identical or similar to the quality washing equipment belonging to the goods category No. 2 in the category No. 11 in the case of the cited trademark. Thus, the above two trademarks cannot be registered.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

claimant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 422 delivered on February 24, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, this original trademark is marked in the upper part of the trademark by crossing the word "Ngel" in Korean, and the cited trademark is marked in English as "Angel". The cited trademark is marked in the upper part of the trademark, and is marked in the lower part of the trademark "NGGL" in Korean, and two trademarks are arranged differently from each other in Korean and English, and the two trademarks are identical in Korean and English, and the composition or name concept of the word is identical to the original trademark and the cited trademark are seen as identical to the designated goods of the cited trademark. In the designated goods of the original trademark and the cited trademark, this original trademark falls under the category 11 of the product classification, and the cited trademark falls under the category 1 product group, and the cited trademark falls under the category 2 of the goods belonging to the category 11 of the cited trademark, and it cannot be seen as being identical with or similar to the registered goods of another person, and thus, it cannot be found that the trademark is identical to or similar to the designated goods of another person, which are identical to the designated goods of the first part of the trademark.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)