Whether the trademark applied for registration is similar to the UN ITD "," the table of reference, and whether it is similar to the table of reference, and the table of reference, and whether the UN ITD PACEVIC, INC. (affirmative)

In this case, the foregoing UNITD itself shall be deemed to be an essential part with the independent distinctive character of the trademark, so the trademark "UNFCCC" in the application trademark, which is the same or similar air transport business as the designated services or small cargo transport business, may cause confusion between the general consumers, namely, the source of goods, and the source of goods, rather than between the general consumers, in accordance with the tendency of the general consumers who intend to memory the trademark by a simple name or concept, rather than being recognized as a single concept or concept.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Hu1496,1502 Decided September 12, 1989

[Defendant-Appellant-Appellant] Patent Attorney Park Jae-gil et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 87 Ba138 dated February 29, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney of the applicant are examined.

Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined depending on whether there is a concern for ordinary consumers in trade to mislead or confuse the source of goods by observing two trademarks used for the same kind of goods in terms of their appearance, concept, objective, objective, overall, and separation. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, if there is a concern for confusion as to the source of goods due to similar parts, it shall be deemed similar trademarks.

According to the records, the applied trademark of this case is a trademark marked as "UNFCCC" in English, and its designated services are air transport business of 108 category 108 category for the book-based service, and the registered trademark 1 cited by the original decision is a trademark in English combined with diagrams and marked as "UNFCCC FESD FAOTRSPGP", and the cited trademark 2 is a trademark marked as " UN ITED PATRAL SCEAL SVE OFEOFEOU, INC." and the designated services are the goods transport business or sub-business of 108 category for the book-based service, and each of the above quoted trademarks is a trademark whose trademark is recognizable as a trademark in English in combination with figures or figures, or whose trademark is recognizable as a trademark in accordance with the concept or concept of "U.N.D." and thus, the designated services can be seen as a trademark's trademark's trademark's trademark's trademark's own word or concept that is recognizable as one of the general consumers in accordance with the concept or concept of "D."

Ultimately, the trademark of this case and each cited trademark of this case are likely to cause misconceptions and confusions between ordinary consumers, namely, the source of goods. Thus, the original decision decided to the purport of this purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of the book-based tickets, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the precedents of lawsuit are related to different classification of designated goods, and are not appropriate in this case, and it cannot be said that they conflict with precedents. Thus, all arguments are groundless.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)