Comparison of Trademarks

The provisions concerning similar trademarks under the former Trademark Act (Act No. 71, Nov. 28, 49.11.2) are similar to those concerning a remote trademark, even though it is not similar in terms of the name, name, and concept of the trademark, and if there is possibility of mistake or confusion in the external appearance, those trademarks are similar.

Article 5 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

Siion Industry Co.

Appellants

Patent Court Decision 76 delivered on June 6, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the person who has been requested for adjudication.

judgment on the first ground for appeal by the respondent's agent;

The purpose of the provisions on similar trademarks of the Trademark Act is to prevent confusion between the two trademarks, and therefore there is a possibility of confusion as to the appearance of a solitary trademark even though the trademark is not similar in terms of name, name, and concept, and such trademark is also a similar trademark. Therefore, the original decision made to the same purport is just and there is no reason to criticize the original decision as a dissenting opinion.

Judgment on the second ground for the same reason;

As to the assertion that a trademark similar to the registered trademark of this case has been widely used prior to the registration of this case, the original adjudication is dismissed lawfully, and thus, on the premise that it can be recognized that the original adjudication was rejected, there is no reason to criticize the original adjudication.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu