Whether the term "romanium" belonging to the same kind of oil listed in the Trademark Act and "the synthetic organic chemical medicine sold only in the petroleum industry," and "the synthetic organic chemical medicine used only as additives and base agents of petroleum products" (negative)

The Schedule of Goods under the Trademark Act does not distinguish the same kind of goods from the convenience of the trademark registration business, so goods belonging to the same kind of goods in the above Schedule can be included in the same kind of goods. The designated goods of this original trademark "romanal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wals in manufacturing a pen site. The producer is a natural wal wal wal wal walsor wal wal wal wal walsor wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal wal.

Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 81Hu152 decided Dec. 28, 1982 (Gong1983,425) (Gong1526 decided Aug. 25, 1987)

Magre Magre Magred Patent Attorney Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

The Appeal Tribunal No. 134 decided on April 29, 1989

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

The grounds of appeal are examined. (Inasmuch as the supplementary statement was submitted after the expiry of the submission period, this ground of appeal is examined as supplement to the extent of supplement).

According to the fact that the original adjudication, although there are somewhat differences in the appearance of the original trademark “PEXL” and the cited trademark “PLXL”, the lower court determined that the designated goods of the original trademark “Rojin-ho,” which are the designated goods of the original trademark, and the synthetic organic chemical substances used only as synthetic organic chemical substances sold only in the petroleum industry, additives of petroleum products, and base agents, which are the designated goods of the cited trademark, fall under Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act, since they are similar goods distributed together in today’s trading society as goods belonging to Class 1 of Article 10 of the Product Classification under the Trademark Act, and thus, they cannot be registered under Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

However, since the trademark registration schedule is divided into the convenience of trademark registration and does not stipulate the same product, the same kind of product shall be determined according to the transactional norms in light of its quality, use, shape, and the actual condition of transaction. A product belonging to the same kind of kind of product in the above Schedule may also be not the same kind of product, but the same kind of product may be different from each other (see Supreme Court Decision 81Hu41 delivered on December 28, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 86Hu152 delivered on August 25, 1987).

According to the records, the "romanyal chemical", which is the designated goods of the main trademark, is used to prevent the spreading of excessive in manufacturing the paper of paper as natural resin from removing scarke oil after increasing the dust through a steam, and is used to prevent the spreading of excessive in manufacturing the paper of paper. The producer is a natural processor, and consumers are the designated goods of the cited trademark against the scarbrity and consumers as the designated goods of the cited trademark "the synthetic organic chemical chemical that is sold only in the petroleum industry, the additives of petroleum products, and the synthetic organic chemical that is used only as a scarbs", which is an artificial organic chemical, to prevent the ice of the engine or prevent the chromaning of salt, is recognized to be different from the ones of the original trademark. Thus, the designated goods of both trademarks cannot be deemed similar in light of their quality, use, and transaction situation.

그럼에도 불구하고 원심이 위 양상품이 동일한 상품구분류에 속하고 거래사회에서 함께 유통돠고 있는 거래실정이라고 결정하여 서로 유사상품이라고 판단하였으니 이는 증거 없이 사실을 인정하였거나 상표법상의 유사상품에 관한 법리를 오해하여 심리미진의 위법을 저질렀다 할 것이니 이 점을 지적하는 논지는 이유있다.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the remaining grounds of appeal without any need to determine the original decision and remand the case to the court below.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)