Criteria for determining similarity of designated goods, and scope of hearings to determine such similarity.

A trademark identical with or similar to a registered trademark based on an earlier application shall not fall under Article 9 (1) 7 of the same Act if it is not a trademark used for goods identical with or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark. Meanwhile, the same or similarity of the designated goods shall be determined in accordance with the transaction norms in consideration of their quality, use, shape, transaction circumstances, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that it belongs to the same kind or similar goods in the attached Table of the classification of goods under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act. In order to determine the same and similarity of the designated goods, it shall be examined as to whether it conforms to the technical fields such as raw materials, use, function, etc. of each designated goods, method of action, structure, production process, etc. of the designated goods, whether the designated goods are finished or goods are parts of the goods, whether

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

Attorney Lee Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1940 Dated April 30, 1992

The original adjudication is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. 원심결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 본원상표는 로마자로 “SNAP-FIT”라 표기한 상표이고, [인용상표]는 한글과 로마자로 표기한 상표로서 외관상 서로 상이하나, 칭호와 관념에 있어서는 본원상표는 SNAP과 FIT의 2개의 요부로 구성되어 “스냅휫” 또는 “스냅”이나 “휫”만으로 호칭 인식되고, 인용상표는 “스냅”으로 호칭 인식된다 할 것이어서 간이 신속을 요하는 거래사회의 경험칙에 비추어 보면, 본원상표가 “SNAP”만으로 약칭되어지는 경우에는 양 상표는 동일하고 각 그 지정상품도 상품구분상 같은 유별인 제11류로서 동일 또는 유사하므로 일반소비자나 거래자에게 출처의 오인, 혼동을 일으킬 우려가 있어 구 상표법(1990.1.13. 법률 제4210호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제9조 제1항 제7호 의 타인의 등록상표와 동일 또는 유사한 상표로서 그 등록상표의 지정상품과 동일 또는 유사한 상품에 사용하는 상표에 해당되어 등록받을 수 없는 것이라고 판단하였다.

2. However, even if a trademark is identical or similar to a registered trademark based on an earlier application, if it is not a trademark used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark, it does not fall under Article 9 (1) 7 of the same Act. Meanwhile, the same or similarity of designated goods shall be decided in accordance with the transaction norms in consideration of their quality, use, shape, transaction circumstances, etc. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that it belongs to the same kind of goods or similar goods in the attached Table of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act (see Supreme Court Decision 89Hu2090, Jul. 10, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1974, Jul. 27, 1990).

3. Therefore, even if the designated goods of the above two trademarks belong to the same kind as the product classification under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, in order to determine whether they fall under Article 9 (1) 7 of the same Act, the same or similarity should be recognized in relation to the designated goods. In order to determine the same or similarity of the designated goods, it should have examined whether the designated goods correspond to the technical field such as raw materials, use, function, etc. of each designated goods, operation method, structure, production process, etc. of the designated goods, whether the designated goods are finished or not, and whether they constitute the part of the goods, the corresponding transaction situation, etc., but the designated third goods are identical or similar only on the ground that they belong to the same kind of product classification without further deliberation by the original trial decision is illegal, which affected the decision.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)