A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

(b) Whether the trademark in English contains the "GINKR" and the "GINGKMIN" and the "GINGKMIN" and the "Korean Spancoin";

A. Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined by whether it is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the release of a product if the two trademarks compared to the two trademarks are used in the same or similar goods. In that case, the trademark used for the goods shall be considered as a whole by taking into account the increase, detention, and chain that the trademark gives to a trader by its appearance, concept, name, etc., and even if there are different parts between the trademarks, it is similar to those constituting the essential part, and it is likely to cause confusion in the overall observation.

B. The cited trademark consisting solely of the English language “GINKR” and the English text “GINGKMIN” and the cited trademark consisting of the cited trademark consisting of both the two trademarks, but is extremely similar in terms of both names when the overall names of both trademarks are referred. Considering that all the designated goods are drugs of the same kind, both trademarks are similar to those that cause general consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the place of the goods.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Hu66 Decided February 28, 1984

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Lunnununununk Lunhun Lunhun Lunhun Lunhun Lunhun Lun Lun Lunhun

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 870 No. 870, Nov. 30, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined by whether it is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the release of a product in the event that two trademarks are used in the same or similar goods, and in such a case, the overall consideration of the impression, memory, relationship, etc. that the trademark used on the product gives to a trader by its appearance, concept, name, etc., and even if there are different parts between the trademarks, it is similar to those constituting the essential part to make it easy to confuse those parts with others in the overall observation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the cited trademark is composed solely of the English language "GINKMIN" and the "Korean Ecopier" together with the English language "GINKR", and both are different from the English language's existence or absence. Thus, both are not similar in appearance, and in terms of the concept, both are deemed as if the original trademark appear to be "GINGKMIN" or "Korea tensionco" without containing any specific concept, and the cited trademark is referred to in Section 2 of the English language "GINKMIN" and the cited trademark is referred to in Section 3 of the English language "GINKMIN" and the cited trademark is deemed to be a similar trademark in light of the records, so it cannot be seen that the two trademarks are identical or similar to the cited trademark, and thus, the "civil", which is referred to in Section 3 of the cited trademark, is deemed to be a trademark of the same kind and thus, it cannot be seen as a combination of two different trademarks to the extent that it can be seen as a combination of two different trademarks.

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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)