A. Criteria for determining similarity of designated goods

(b) Whether it is a content for a mountain camp and whether it is a product similar to a glaret, a glaret, a gol, a golf product, or a golf machine;

A. The classification of the category of goods under Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration, and does not define the scope of similarity of goods. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the goods belong to the same kind of product as that of the classification of goods, and the same or similar goods cannot be determined immediately on the ground that they belong to the same kind of product. Whether the designated goods are identical or similar to the designated goods should be determined in accordance with the general transaction norms by taking into account the actual circumstances of the transaction,

B. The designated goods of the applied trademark and the cited trademark belong to Class 3 of the product classification list under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act. However, in light of the product quality, shape, use, and the actual condition of transaction, the designated goods of the applied trademark are identical or similar to those of the designated goods of the cited trademark in terms of ordinary trade norms, while the designated goods of the cited trademark are produced by the specialized enterprise of the equipment specialized in the mountain and fishing products generally sold in the mountain or fishing products store.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 93Hu695 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2631). Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1793 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1867) 92Hu1745 delivered on February 26, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1087) 92Hu2106 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1712)

Attorney Ahn Young-ro, Counsel for the applicant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 91Na2331 dated September 27, 1993

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined to the effect that the original trademark is identical to the original trademark and the cited trademark, the cited trademark, the designated goods of which are the cited trademark, shall be the designated goods of the category 43 of the goods, and the similarity of the designated goods falls under the same category 3 of the category 43 of the goods, and the specific use is classified, but the goods are sold at the same category 3 of the goods, and the sale is generally the same as the sports area except for the specific consumers, and the goods are not classified into the two kinds of goods in the mass sports era, considering the fact that the consumers of the goods are not classified in each kind of goods. Thus, the original trademark and the cited trademark are identical, and the designated goods are likely to mislead and confuse general consumers as to the origin of the goods, and thus, they cannot be registered under Article 7(1) of the Trademark Act.

(2) However, the classification of goods under Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration, and the scope of similarity of goods is not determined (Article 10(2) of the Trademark Act). Thus, it cannot be readily determined that the designated goods belong to the same kind of goods or similar goods just because they belong to the same kind of goods as the classification of goods. Whether or not the designated goods are identical or similar to the designated goods should be determined in accordance with the common sense of general transactions in consideration of the quality, shape, use and production, sale sector, scope of consumers, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Hu2106, May 11, 1993). While all the designated goods of the original trademark and the cited trademark belong to Class 43 of the classification of goods under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, the goods are generally produced by specialized enterprises such as "gymna," which are the designated goods of the original trademark, and the goods are not referred to 9.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the original trademark is identical to the cited trademark of another person, which is the trademark of another person, by the earlier application, and its designated goods are similar to the cited trademark of another person, and thus, it cannot be registered under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act. Thus, the original decision did not properly conduct a hearing or contains an error of law in misunderstanding the legal principles as to "identical or similar goods" under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, and it is obvious that such an error has affected the trial decision. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

(3) Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)