Whether the trademark “(1)” and the applied trademark “(2)” and the cited trademark “” are similar (affirmative)

The applied trademark(1) and the applied trademark(2) " " " " " shall be the designated goods of Category 4 of the goods grouping No. 10 of the goods grouping of Category 4, and the cited trademark shall be the 10 kinds of goods, such as the saccinants, insects, saccinants, ratss, and plant saccinants, etc. of Category 4 of Category 10, and the cited trademark shall be the 10 kinds of goods, such as the saccins, saccins, mid-tour chemicals, chemical disability treatment medicines, saccins, etc. of Category 4 of the same Chapter. The above "Accins" and "AGRO" shall be the abbreviations of "accins" and "DOccins" with distinctive character in relation to the designated goods, and this part shall be recognized as identical to the cited trademark, and it shall not be considered that the goods are different from the goods of the agricultural drug at the same place.

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

Patent Attorney Lee Dong-ro et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90 Nos. 1913,1914 (Consolidated) dated March 31, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the original decision, this case's trademark " "" and "AGRO" are two kinds of 7 products, such as sterilizations, insects, homicides, grasslands, ratss, plant monmons, etc., which belong to Class 4 of the product classification 10. The quoted trademark " " seems to have been 10 kinds of products," and its quoted trademark is 10 kinds of designated products, such as Korean Ambassadors, Non-Paccins, mid-tours, chemical disability therapy, chemical disability therapy, and hmons, which are 10 kinds of products, and it is difficult to recognize distinctiveness in relation to the designated products, and it is not possible to recognize the existence of distinctiveness in relation to the designated products, and it is recognized that the part of the trademark "DGGGG" and the part of the trademark "DGGG" belonging to Category 10 is somewhat the same as the part of the trademark of the previous 90 categories of products, and it is recognized that there is no reason to regard it as similar to the trademark of the previous 10 kinds of products.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment above of the decision of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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 Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)