Whether the applied trademark “S-YARD” and the prior registered trademark “Scholyard” are similar (affirmative)

The similarity between the applied trademark "S-YARD" and the prior-registered trademark "S Schcholyard" is examined, and in the general trade community, the trademark is referred to as "sCHOL" is likely to be perceived as reducing the "SCHOL" in the case of observing the applied trademark and the prior-registered trademark on a general level or on a different basis from the general consumer's perspective. In such a case, both trademarks are identical, and both trademarks are used on the same designated goods such as golfization, and if both trademarks are used on the same goods, there is a concern that the trader or the general consumer may mislead or confuse the origin of goods.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Gaba Gaba Gaba Gabaco (Patent Attorney Haba and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na51 dated June 4, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

According to the record, it is likely that the trademark of this case and the cited trademark "S-YARD" (hereinafter referred to as the "S-YAR") registered in earlier application are similar to the cited trademark "S-YAR" (registration No. 154799, May 25, 1988) and the cited trademark "SOlyman" (registration No. 154799, May 25, 198), since there is a tendency to refer to the trademark under whose name the trademark is abbreviationd if there is a large number of letters or longer in the general trade world, it is possible to recognize that the "S" part of the original trademark is reduced by the "SCHOL" from the general consumer's perspective when observing the trademark in separation, and if so, both trademarks are identical, and if both trademarks are used as the same designated goods such as golfization, it would cause misconception or confusion with the origin of goods. Accordingly, the registration of the original trademark is justified in accordance with Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, the conclusion is just in its conclusion, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks or in violation of the rule of experience. The grounds of appeal are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)