A. Whether “the similarity” and “the cited trademark” are “the similarity” (affirmative)

(b) Whether homicides, etc. and similar goods, such as fire extinguishing agents, are available;

A. The applied trademark " " and the cited trademark " is added "the person" to the end of the cited trademark ", in preparation for the above", but it does not have any special meaning or meaning, and is referred to as a weakly, while the two trademarks are referred to as the first, the second, the second, the same sound is the same and the name is referred to as a strong and strong, and thus both trademarks are similar.

B. Slaughteres, which are the designated goods of the applied trademark No. 10 No. 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, and fire extinguishing agents, which are the designated goods of the cited trademark, can not be distinguished from each other in light of the sales place or form, regardless of differences in its ingredients or use. Thus, similar goods should be considered as similar goods.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Do2748 delivered on December 27, 1983 (Gong1984, 290) 85Hu134 delivered on March 11, 1986 (Gong1986, 640) 90Hu366 delivered on September 28, 1990 (Gong190, 2170)

B. 84Hu104 decided Jan. 29, 1985 (Gong1985, 367)

M. M. Doz Doz.

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office's decision on January 31, 1991, 89Na1257

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below added the "person" to the end of the cited trademark in preparation for the cited trademark in Korean and English in comparison with the original trademark in the English and French border, but it does not have any special meaning, and it also refers to the summary, while the first, second, the second, the two trademarks are identical and the name is similar, and thus the name is similar. Thus, the above decision of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the determination of trademark ownership, as pointed out in the theory of the lawsuit.

In addition, the court below deemed that the spons et al., designated goods of the trademark as the main source of the trademark, and the fire extinguishing agents' designated goods of the cited trademark, belong to Class 4 of the same Article under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, and therefore, the classification of similar goods under the above Enforcement Rule is merely a classification for the convenience of trademark registration affairs, and it is not a statutory category of similar goods, and therefore it is not a similar goods. Therefore, this part of the court below's reasoning is insufficient. However, each of the above two trademarks' designated goods can be seen as a similar goods because it is not easy to distinguish them with the ordinary consumers' small knowledge in light of the sales place or form despite the difference in its ingredients or use, and therefore, it is legitimate in the conclusion of the judgment of the court below. Therefore, the appeal on this part is not possible to be adopted.

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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)