[1] Whether trademark "HYPERHAD" and "HYPER-1" are similar (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that "HYPER" among trademarks referred to in paragraph (1) is not a technical mark in relation to radio and air conditioners, etc. as designated goods

[1] The applied trademark "HYPERHD" and the cited trademark "HYPER-1" are all combined trademarks composed of letters and letters. Each part of the letters is separated from each other, and it is difficult to view that the combination does not create a new concept and that it is a combination of two separate concepts to the extent naturally unrepared. Thus, in light of the situation of a trade society where both trademarks intend to name and concept, they can be separately observed in each part of the letters among ordinary consumers. In short, in light of the situation of a trade society where both trademarks intend to name and concept, both trademarks are similar if both trademarks are identical to their names and concepts, and if both trademarks are observed in a whole, objective, and different manners, they are similar.

[2] The case holding that it cannot be viewed as directly indicating the quality or efficacy of a radio receiver, electric air conditioners, etc., which is the designated goods, as a combination with the meaning of "HYPER", which is an essential part of the applied trademark or the cited trademark under paragraph (1) of this Article, even though it does not suggest to some extent the quality or efficacy of the designated goods

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1890 delivered on June 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2191), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2357 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2038), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1927 delivered on June 27, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2369) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu184 delivered on December 10, 1996 (Gong197Ha, 383), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1729 delivered on May 23, 197 (Gong197Ha, 1874) (Gong197Ha, 1874), Supreme Court Decision 937Hu39779 delivered on July 8, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2397Hah, 197).

Busan High Court Decision 200Na14778 decided May 1, 200

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na1919 decided August 30, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the trademark of this case filed on December 23, 1993, applied on September 6, 1989 and the cited trademark "HYPER-1" registered on November 13, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "cite trademark") registered on September 13, 1990 is a combination trademark composed of letters and letters. Each letter is separated externally, and each part does not create a new concept due to their combinations, and it is difficult to see that there is a combination of two different concepts to the extent that naturality is naturally impossible if it is separately observed, each part of the ordinary consumers can be separately observed and observed. In light of the situation of the trade society where a simple trademark is referred to as "HPERD" and the trade society where it is intended to concept, both trademarks can be referred to as the "HPER", which is the essential part of the trademark, or may be referred to as the "HPER-1", and if both trademarks are to be seen as identical or similar to each other, both trademarks should be referred to as an objective concept.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that maintained the original condition that the trademark applied for registration cannot be registered under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks, incomplete hearing, or lack of reasoning, etc.

The precedents of party members cited in the theory of lawsuit are different from this case, and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case. It is a combination that has the meaning of "HYPER", which is an essential part of the applied trademark or the cited trademark of this case, such as "the upper part" and "the upper part", and it cannot be deemed as a direct display of the quality or efficacy of the designated goods, such as radio receiver, electric air conditioners, etc., which is the designated goods. It is not easy to understand its meaning in light of the level of English distribution among the general consumers in our country, but it is not a word that is actually used in society, and thus, it is not a lack of distinctiveness. All arguments are without merit.

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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)