Whether or not the applied trademark [application trademark] and the personal trademark [personal trademark] are similar

The trademark in the application trademark and the cited trademark are referred simply to only the unique part in the general transaction that respects the simple speed in the name as a whole in its appearance, and it seems that the trademark in the original trademark and the cited trademark can be referred to or recognized as both as "new media" and "new electronic", and both are common in terms of the concept, and both are "new" and "new". The former and media cannot be determined as not having any relation concept in terms of their designated goods under today's trade situation, and even in the combination of letters and diagrams, each of them cannot be viewed as a distinctive part in the name and concept, and thus, both are likely to cause misconceptions and confusions with the trademark in the place of goods by being recognized similar to the general consumers in the name and concept.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 801 dated June 26, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the appellant agent.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

In determining similarity of a trademark, two trademarks used on the same or similar goods shall be used by means of objective, overall or different observation of their appearance, title, and concept, and as to which extent they are likely to cause mistake or confusion among the goods in the trade, and as to which they are similar, similar trademarks shall be deemed as similar trademarks (Supreme Court Decision 74Hu70 Decided December 9, 1975; Supreme Court Decision 70Hu41 Decided February 28, 1969; 68Hu42 Decided February 28, 1969; hereinafter referred to as "the trademark of this case") which is a new trademark or a new trademark which is used on the same or similar goods shall not be seen as being identical to the trademark of this case as "the new trademark of this case, which is a combination of new trademark of this case, and shall not be seen as being identical to the trademark of this case as a new trademark of this case, and as a whole, as a whole, as well as a new trademark of this case, as it is hard to see that there is no special circumstance to see it as a general media relation.

Therefore, the decision of the court below with the above conclusion is just, and it cannot be said that there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the criteria for determining trademarks such as the theory of lawsuit, or an misunderstanding of the empirical rule or a lack

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to the application for trademark registration of the original trademark and the copy of the original trademark registration which is bound in the records, the designated goods of the original trademark are classified as the tape of the recorded machinery and apparatus (1) 39 (2) (3) recorded machinery and apparatus (4) recorded machines and apparatus) 19 (2) recorded machines and apparatus (3) recorded lecode tape (5) recorded lecode tape (5) recorded lecode. The designated goods of the cited trademark are classified as goods and it is obvious that the designated goods of the cited trademark include the same kind of goods as the designated goods in light of the use of the goods or the actual transaction situation. Moreover, it cannot be viewed that the original decision contains different sales points in light of the fact that the designated goods of the cited trademark constitute the same product classification as the designated goods of the original trademark of the cited trademark; and it is not erroneous in the judgment of the Supreme Court Decision 81Hu41 delivered on December 28, 198; 9Hu7999 delivered on September 9, 1980.

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)