Whether the designated goods are similar to the cited trademark “INTSNATRAL”, the 10 goods of which are the 15 categories of application trademarks and the designated goods of the 15 categories of goods (negative)

The applied trademark "The designated goods are clearly different in terms of their appearance and concept from 10 items, such as PINNAL No. 15, Eelel, etc., of the product classification "The cited trademark "INIVNIONAL", which is the product of Category 15 of the product classification. In addition to the trademark's name, the applied trademark is identical, or as a whole, it cannot be deemed as similar to that of ordinary consumers to the extent that they cause mistake or confusion as to the source of the designated goods, in addition to the trademark's name "in-houser", which is the trademark's name.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4,210 of September 1, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 88Hu1410 Decided September 29, 1989 (Gong1989,1585) 89Hu544 Decided November 14, 1989 (Gong1990,37) 88Hu1335 Decided December 12, 1989 (Gong190,265)

Attorney Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na776 Dated July 25, 1991

The original adjudication is reversed.

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The original trial decision determined that the trademark is a combination of the original trademark "the figure and English, which is a product classification No. 15, and the designated goods are 10 cited trademarks consisting of the cited trademarks consisting of the English letters only of the product classification No. 15, and that the trademark falls under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Sep. 14, 1990) because the two trademarks are different in appearance and concept, but they can be called "propyr Rotations," or simply as "propyr Rotations," because they are identical or similar to the cited trademark and thus, if they are used for each designated goods, they might cause misconception or confusion with ordinary consumers or traders as to the delivery of goods.

However, the determination of the same or similar trademark should be made by observing the appearance, name, and concept objectively, as a whole, in an objective, overall, and separately, and based on the direct perception that ordinary consumers feel two trademarks in each of the designated goods transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 88Hu1410, Sept. 29, 1989). The judgment of the court below that there is an obvious difference in the appearance and concept of the two trademarks is also recognized that there is an obvious difference in the trademark's appearance and concept. In addition, in title, the trademark of this case cannot be seen as similar to that of the designated goods in that it bears a clear sense that it is possible to distinguish the trademark's name, "profes", which is the name of the cited trademark, and thus, it cannot be seen as being identical, or as a whole, to the extent that ordinary consumers misleads or confuse the origin of the designated goods.

In the end, the original trial decision affected the trial decision by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks. Therefore, the grounds for appeal assigning this point are with merit.

Therefore, the original decision shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)