Whether the application trademark “(ono)” and the cited trademark “GYNO-PEARYL” are similar

According to the observation of the applied trademark “(ono)” and the “GYO-PVARYL”, the applied trademark is a single fishery of GYNO, and the cited trademark is a single fishery of GYNO with the GYNO, and there is a difference between the name and the two in the transaction of the same designated goods. However, in accordance with the direct observation, the general consumers are likely to confuse the two trademarks with the mark “GYO”, which is common to the above two trademarks, with the focus on the mark “GYO”, which is the same as the origin of the goods. Therefore, both trademarks are similar.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

Patent Attorney Hancheon Industrial Co., Ltd.

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision (Section 119) No. 119, August 23, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant’s attorney are examined (the supplementary appellate brief is submitted at the expiration of the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, and thus, determination shall be made to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the above grounds of appeal). In applying Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined depending on whether the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark may cause confusion as to the origin of goods under the generally accepted norms of the transaction of goods by comprehensively observing the appearance, name,

According to the records, the trademark applied in this case was marked as Korean and English, and the cited earlier registration mark is marked as "GYO-PEARYL" in English, and both designated goods are the pharmaceutical products listed in Category 10 of the product classification. According to the observation of the above two trademarks, the part of the English mark of the applied trademark in this case is the single language of GYO, the cited trademark is the shot of GYO and PEARRL, and the cited trademark is the shot of GYO and PEARRL, and accordingly there is a difference in its name. However, in the trade of the same designated goods, it is sufficient that general consumers might confuse and confuse the above two trademarks with the mark "GYO", which is common to the two trademarks in accordance with their direct observation.

In the end, the decision of the original court regarded the applied trademark of this case as a similar trademark that falls under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act and maintained the ruling of rejection is just and it is not reasonable to hold a hearing, and there is no error in the application of the law, such as the lack of reason or the assertion of the arguments

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)