(a) A case where multiple trademarks are deemed similar in composition of the “NR” or “Batch” date;

B. The term “Nal” in several registered trademarks includes a description written in letters, whether the said part loses a special distinction (negative)

(a) This original trademark is an integrated trademark of letters and diagrams drawn “NIONL” in English in the bottom of the small pattern, and then, the original trademark and the cited trademark in this part are the word “NIONAL” in the national letter, and the cited trademark in this part are the word “Nal” in the national letter, and the cited trademark in Article 2 is the word “Nal” in English inside the bottom of the original form, and the cited trademark in this part and the cited trademark are the word “Nal” in English in the English form. The above original trademark and the cited trademark are the essential parts that can represent the entire trademark, “NIONAL” and the words “in-house shock” or “in-house shock”, the national flag, and they constitute a similar trademark when the name and concept of the essential part are identical.

B. Many registered trademarks contain letters “NTIONAL” or “NAL”, and it cannot be readily concluded that these parts have no special distinction between trademarks and trademarks.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Patent Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

On December 22, 1981, the Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 292

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether or not a trademark is similar or not shall be increased by observing the idea, name, etc. of both trademarks to be similar in the overall relationship to others, so that they may be confused with each other in a product transaction. The essential part of the trademark is the part having the most essential character to represent the entire trademark, that is, the name of the trademark, in principle, from the essential part of the trademark. According to the records, the original trademark is formed within the small mix, and its original form is cut in English in the shape of the mail, and the trademark is crossed "NTONAL" in English in the shape of the mail, and under which the word "in-house shock" and the word "in-house shock" and the word "in-house 1, 2007, 2000, 2000 or 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

In addition, in order to determine whether or not there is a special distinction between the trademark and the trademark, each constituent part of the trademark shall not be deemed to be one removal, but the whole constituent part of the trademark shall be deemed to be one of the parts of the trademark, such as the novel theory that is the owner of the above quoted trademark in Japan, which is the owner of the above quoted trademark, and there are parts in writing “NTIONAL” or shock day in each registered trademark of Denmark Co., Ltd., Denisher Co., Ltd., in the United States, and in the domestic shock shower Co., Ltd., in Korea, and they cannot be concluded to be of lack of special distinction as trademark. In this regard, the original trademark and the above quoted trademark are just and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory.

2. According to Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 2506, Dec. 31, 1976; hereinafter "the Trademark Act") at the time of the filing of the application, "trademarks which are identical with or similar to another person's registered trademark by earlier application and are used on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods of the trademark." As seen above, as seen above, the original trademark cannot be registered. The original trademark is identical with or similar to the above cited trademark (registration No. 2 omitted) designated goods of category 37, which are the designated goods of the above cited trademark (registration No. 2 omitted), and the automatic bicycles belonging to Category 37, which are identical with or similar to the tubes, are designated goods. Thus, the original trademark cannot be registered pursuant to the above provision. However, since the original trademark decision is recognized among consumers in Japan and Denmark, it cannot be seen that the above cited trademark's first trademark is likely to cause confusion or confusion with the above cited trademark's original trademark, it cannot be seen that the above cited trademark's first trademark is no reason for confusion.

3. If the registration of the original trademark is refused for the above reasons, it is the same as that of the above Japanese company, but it is nothing more than the anti-private effect that may result in the use of the identical or similar trademark on the same or similar designated goods, and thus, it is not reasonable to conclude that the theory of lawsuit on this point is without merit.

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 Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)