[1] Whether the applied trademark "NORE TNGLS" constitutes a technical (technical) trademark under Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (affirmative)

[2] Whether the application trademark "NOMRETGLS" and the cited trademark "tank writing" are similar (affirmative)

[1] The patent applied for the designated goods such as "HO MRE RE RE" is easily used as an expression emphasizing "not more than --" among its composition, and "TNGLS" as an expression emphasizing "TNGLS", but its main meaning is "TNGLS" in light of our country's English distribution level, it is deemed that there is no difficulty for ordinary consumers to easily recognize the designated goods by referring to 'HO RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE' as an expression 'if above', 'NO RE RE RE RE RE RE' as an expression 'not more than 'ever --', 'TNGLS'. However, in light of our country's English distribution level, it seems that the main meaning of the designated goods is lived, such as turbing, tangring, and tangral power.

[2] The applied trademark "NOMRE TNGLS" refers to an essential part with its central distinctive character as a "TNGLS" and thus, it is likely that if both trademarks are used for the designated goods identical or similar to those of the identical or similar trademarks, it may cause misconceptions and confusions as to the place of the goods in trade.

[1] Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997) / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Hu2440 delivered on February 22, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 845) Supreme Court Decision 99Hu2549 delivered on February 22, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 847) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Hu529 delivered on July 9, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1631), Supreme Court Decision 9Hu567 delivered on August 20, 199 (Gong199Ha, 187)

존슨앤드존슨 (소송대리인 변리사 박경재)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 97Na133 dated December 22, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held that since the trademark of this case filed on September 27, 1995, "NO MRE RE RE" is easily used as an expression emphasizing 'TNGLS' and 'TNGLES' and 'the main meaning of the designated goods is 'TNGGLS' and 'the main meaning of the designated goods is 'the 0th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 'the 9th 'the 9th 'the 'the 9th 'the 'the 9th 'the 'the 9th 'the 'the 9th 'the 'the 9th 'the ' the ' the 9th ' mark'. 'the ' the '. 'the 9th ' the '. 'the ' the 'the 'the '.

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds for appeal, such as incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence

The Supreme Court precedents in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, unlike the case.

All arguments in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)