[1] The case holding that trademark "SPARK" and "spacol" are similar

[2] The case holding that "agricultural first-aid products" and "recognating agents, truth control, oral washing systems" are similar goods

[1] The case holding that, in comparison with the trademark "SPAK" and the cited trademark "SP" which was applied and registered in earlier application, both trademarks are composed of English and English, and their appearance differs from each other, and even in concept, the cited trademark has different meaning, but the cited trademark has no meaning as the cited trademark, but is not compared with each other, since the cited trademark is a spak, in light of the general consumer's understanding level of foreign language in our country, the trademark applied for registration is referred to as "spak", and therefore, in light of the name's general consumer's understanding level of foreign language, the two parts of the cited trademark's "spak" are identical to the two parts of the cited trademark's "spak," the sound of which is identical and important, and the third sound is extremely similar to that of "k," and thus, both trademarks are similar to the name, and thus, both trademarks are to be observed in whole, objective, and variablely.

[2] The case holding that the "agricultural first as the designated goods of the applied trademark" and the "debrisoning agents" as the designated goods of the cited trademark, the identification system, the respiratory medicine, the pulmonary medicine, the outpatient medicine, the oral control, the oral washing medicine, etc., all belong to the category of goods under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act and the quality and shape can not be easily distinguishable from the category of goods under the Trademark Act, and therefore, they are similar goods under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act in light of the common sense of transaction.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1194 delivered on April 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1620) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu344 delivered on September 6, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3015), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1903 delivered on June 27, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2179) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1616 delivered on June 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2189), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu184 delivered on December 10, 196 (Gong197Sang, 383), Supreme Court Decision 197Hu1979 delivered on March 197, 197 (Gong1997Sang, 197Sang, 197Hu197579 delivered on March 197.

Montreal City Cambodia (Patent Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na2343 dated November 25, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the decision of the court below in accordance with the records and relevant laws and regulations, the court below held that the trademark of this case, which was applied on July 30, 1994, "SPAK" (designated goods: agriculture first of Chapter 10) and the cited trademark registered prior to the filing of the application, "SP protocol" (registration number omitted): The designated goods of this case are similar in comparison with the protective agents of Chapter 10, 200, 300, 300, 40,000,000, and two trademarks are composed of English and Korean, and the appearance of this case differs from each other. However, the cited trademark of this case, which is applied on the concept, has the intention of "non-fluort and so on", but its meaning is not identical to the cited trademark of this case, and if it is extremely similar to the registered trademark of this case to the general consumers in light of the general consumers' understanding level, it is not proper to accept the trademark of this case, and thus, the trademark of this case is not similar to the general consumers's.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act is a product similar to those provided for in Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act in light of the common sense of transaction, since both the "agricultural draft" as the designated goods of the trademark applied in this case and the "designated goods of the cited trademark, identification system, pulmonary medicine, respiratory equipment medicine, out-of-the-counter medicine, earthquake control, oral washing medicine, etc., belong to the category of goods under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act and the quality and shape can not be easily distinguished among general consumers (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1616, Jun. 11, 1996).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of goods, or omission of judgment, as alleged in the theory of lawsuit, etc.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)