(a) The case holding that the designated goods of the applied trademark and the designated goods of the cited trademark are not identical or similar in light of their shape, use, sales network, purchaser, etc., although the designated goods of the two trademarks belong to the same kind as the goods classification table;

A. The classification of goods under Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration, and does not define the scope of similarity of goods. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the designated goods belong to the same kind of goods as that of the classification of goods. The same or similar kind of designated goods shall be determined in accordance with the general transaction norms by taking into account the actual circumstances of the transaction, such as quality, shape, use and production, sales sector, scope of consumers, etc., which are the characteristics of the goods.

B. The case holding that although the designated goods of the applied trademark and the cited trademark belong to Class 45 of the classification of goods under the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act, the designated goods of the applied trademark and the cited trademark are similar in light of their quality, shape, use and transaction circumstances, etc., the designated goods of the applied trademark cannot be seen as having been easily distinguishable from the designated goods of the cited trademark in terms of their shape and use, and the designated goods of the applied trademark are mainly produced from the specialized manufacturer of medical goods and are sold through the specialized store of medical goods, and the designated goods of the cited trademark are different from the designated goods of the applied trademark in terms of their general market or department store because they are produced from the specialized manufacturer of medical goods and are not the specialized manufacturer, and the designated goods of the applied trademark are different from those of the cited trademark in terms of their general market or department store, etc., and in light of their shape, use and transaction circumstances, etc., the designated goods of the trademark cannot be concluded to be identical or similar to those of the designated goods of the trademark in light of general trade norms.

(a)Article 7(1)7 and 10(a) of the Trademark Act; Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee

Josonnson’s Patent Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na915 Dated June 30, 1994

The original decision shall be reversed. The case shall be remanded to the Appellate Trial Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the original trademark is registered as the designated goods under Chapter 45 of the classification of goods, and the cited trademark, which is the prior registered trademark, is registered under Chapter 45 of the classification of goods, "A, B, B, C, and C, etc." as the designated goods. With regard to the similarity of the two trademarks, the two trademarks are different from each other, and the two trademarks are different from each other, and the cited trademark is referred to as "A, B, B, C, and C," or "T," and if the cited trademark is referred to as "A," the cited trademark is referred to as "A, B," or "T," and if the cited trademark is referred to as "AT," the two trademarks are different from those of "B, C, C, C, and C, and thus, they are not identical or similar to those of "A, C, C, and thus, they are not identical to those of the two designated goods, and thus, they are not identical to the two trademarks.

2. However, even if the applied trademark is the same as the cited trademark with the prior registered trademark, it does not constitute a trademark which cannot be registered under the Trademark Act unless it is used for the designated goods identical with or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark. The classification of goods under Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration, and the scope of similarity of goods is not determined (Article 10(2) of the Trademark Act). Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the designated goods are the same or similar goods just because they belong to the same kind of goods as the classification of goods. Whether they are identical or similar to the designated goods should be determined in accordance with the general transaction norms by taking into account the quality, shape, use, production sector, the scope of consumers, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Hu1506, Feb. 22, 1994; 92Hu2106, May 11, 1993).

3. According to the records, among the designated goods of the original trademark, the designated goods of the original trademark belong to Class 45 of the classification of goods under the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act. However, the designated goods of the original trademark and the cited trademark are similar in light of their quality, shape, use and transaction circumstances. Rather, all the designated goods of the original trademark are easily distinguishable from those of the cited trademark in terms of form and usage as medical use. The designated goods of the original trademark are mainly produced from the specialized manufacturing enterprise and are sold through the specialized medical supplies sales store. However, the designated goods of the cited trademark are different from those of the general manufacturing enterprise, not the specialized manufacturing enterprise, and the buyer or consumer is a medical institution or doctor, and the designated goods of the original trademark are not identical or similar to those of the cited trademark in light of their use and transaction circumstances.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the designated goods of the original trademark and the designated goods of the cited trademark belong to Class 45 of the classification of goods as identical or similar goods. The court below's decision did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on similar goods under the Trademark Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the trial decision, and therefore, the part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)