[1] Whether the phrase "BUBLE" has distinctiveness in a trademark whose designated goods are sprinking sprinks (negative), and the method of determining the similarity of trademarks, including it

[2] The case holding that the applied trademark "Slub BUBLE" and the cited trademark "DUBBLE" are not similar

[1] The term "BUBLE" among the parts of the applied trademark refers to "bUBLE" as an English language language with the purport that it is a big product, and in light of our country's English propagation level, it is deemed that ordinary consumers can be recognized as "fluorous brut gum, such as large products," and the term "bub gum" as an "bUBBLE" in the applied trademark, and it is also deemed that the term "BLE" or "brut clobb" as an ordinary name as the designated product, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the term "BLE" or "BL" cannot be deemed as a non-distinctive character as the whole "UBLE" or "BBL" mark as its distinctive character, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as a non-distinctive character or non-distinctive character in the applied trademark, and the term "BUBL" or "BL" mark as a non-distinctive character as the designated product.

[2] The case holding that the applied trademark "Slub BUBLE" and the cited trademark "DUBBLE" are not similar

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1261 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 722), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1494 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1404), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu2084 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2673), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1057 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1119)

Neglecting corporation and (Patent Attorney Kim Won-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 96Na1616 dated June 10, 1997

The original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, in preparation for the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") and the trademark of another person (hereinafter referred to as the "citing trademark registration number omitted) by earlier application, the court below affirmed the decision that the original trademark may cause mistake and confusion between the original trademark and the cited trademark that can be referred to and conceptualized by only the "DUBBBBBBBBLE" or "BBBBLE" in light of today's commercial transaction customs and thus, if the original trademark is used in the same or similar trademark as the designated goods by identical or similarly identical or similar to the original trademark, the original trademark may cause confusion and confusion between the original trademark and the ordinary consumers as to the goods' registration pursuant to Article 7 (1) of the Trademark Act.

2. However, according to the records, since the term "BUBLE" among the parts of the original trademark is an English language with the purport that it is a ‘distinctive character,' the term "BUBLE" can be seen as a ‘distinctive prescription' in relation to the process of distributing the English language of our country, as well as the term "bub girum" in a prior meaning, "bUBLE" among the original trademark or its Korean language "bUBBLE" can not be viewed as a ‘distinctive prescription' as an ‘distinctive prescription' and thus, it cannot be viewed as a ‘distinctiveness and distinguishability of the original trademark as an ‘distinctive prescription' or ‘distinctiveness of the original trademark' as an ‘distinctive prescription' and thus, it cannot be viewed as a ‘distinctive prescription' and ‘distinctive prescription of the original trademark as an ‘distinctive prescription' and thus, it cannot be viewed as a ‘distinctive character' and thus, it cannot be viewed as a ‘distinctive character' of the original trademark as an ‘distinctive character' and distinctive character.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the trademark is identical and similar to the cited trademark under the premise that only its name and concept can be separately observed by the "BUBLE", "BBLE", or "BUBBLE", and thus, it would cause misconceptions or confusions as to the source of goods to ordinary consumers, by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of similarity of trademarks, which affected the conclusion of the decision.

The grounds of appeal are with merit.

3. Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office corresponding to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)