(a) A trademark identical or similar to a registered trademark based on an earlier application, if the designated goods are not identical or similar to the registered goods, the registered price book;

B. Criteria for determining identical or similar goods under the Trademark Act

(a) even if a trademark is identical or similar to the registered trademark based on the earlier application, if it is not used on goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark, it does not constitute a case where it cannot be registered under Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark

B. The same or similarity of the designated goods is limited to only their quality, use, form, and actual condition of transactions, and thus, they should be determined according to the transaction norms. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that they belong to the same or similar kind of goods in the attached Table of a trademark under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act.

(a)Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 81Hu41 Decided December 28, 1982

Patent Attorney Choi-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 444 decided September 23, 1985

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act provides that a trademark used on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods of another person by an earlier application shall not be registered as a trademark which is identical or similar to or similar to the designated goods of the earlier application. Thus, even a trademark identical or similar to or similar to the registered trademark by an earlier application shall not fall under the trademark used on goods identical or similar to

In addition, the same or similarity of designated goods shall be decided according to the transaction norms in consideration of their quality, use, shape, and actual condition of transactions. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that goods of the same kind or similar kind are goods belonging to the same category under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act (see Supreme Court Decision 81Hu41, Dec. 26, 1982).

원심결은 그 이유에서 본원상표의 지정상품인 "당구용 쿳숑"과 인용상표의 지정상품인 "다이아몬드 게임"은 상표법시행규칙의 상품구분 제43류 제2군의오락용구류에 속하는 동종상품이라고 판시하고 있지만 비록 이 사건 각 그 지정상품이 상표법시행규칙의 상품구분상 같은류별의 오락용구에 속해있다 하더라도 위 "당구용쿳숑"과 "다이아몬드 게임"은 각 그 상품의 용도, 형상 및 거래의 실정등에 비추어볼 때 동종 또는 유사한 상품이라고 볼 수는 없다고 할것이므로 이를 동종상품이라고 보고, 이 사건 출원신청을 거절 사정한 것은 상표법 제9조 제1항 제7호 에서 말하는 동종 또는 유사한 상품에 대한 법리를 오해하고 채증법칙을 어긴 위법이 있다 할 것이다. 이 점을 지적하는 주장은 이유있다.

Although each of the designated goods is not a trademark of the same kind, the trademark right holder or a person specially related to the trademark holder may cause misconceptions or confusions among consumers by deeming it as a modern industrial structure that produces and sells many different kinds of goods throughout the fields of industry, even though each of the designated goods is not a trademark of the same kind, and thus, it may cause misconceptions or confusions among consumers. Thus, in a case where a trademark is similar to a trademark, an application for trademark of this case shall also be rejected. However, this is related to a well-known trademark under Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act, which is not a well-known trademark, and thus cannot

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)