[1] Criteria for determining whether the designated goods are identical or similar

[2] The case holding that the applied trademark does not constitute "a trademark which cannot be registered" under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act on the grounds that the designated goods of the applied trademark " " " "" and the prior registered trademark 1 " "" are different in quality, shape, purpose, production sector, and consumer scope from the designated goods of "medical temperature system for domestic use" and "the prior registered trademark 2 "

[1] The classification of goods under Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration, and does not define the scope of similarity of goods. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the goods belong to the same kind of goods as the classification of goods. The similarity of the designated goods is determined on the basis of whether the use of a trademark identical or similar to the goods compared to the goods is likely to be mistaken for the goods manufactured or sold by the same enterprise. However, the determination should be made based on the general transaction norms by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances of the transaction, such as quality, shape, use and production, sales sector, scope of consumers, etc., which are the characteristics of the goods themselves.

[2] The case holding that the applied trademark does not constitute "a trademark which cannot be registered" under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act on the grounds that the designated goods of the applied trademark " " " "" and the prior registered trademark 1 " "" are different in quality, shape, use, and production, and in terms of quality, shape, and the scope of consumers, as the designated goods of "medical temperature system" and "a fluor attached with a waferer for human airport patients/pasium patients" and the prior registered trademark 2 "B" are different in terms of quality, shape, and production, etc.

[1] Articles 7(1)7 and 10(1) of the Trademark Act, Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1285 delivered on December 2, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 492) Supreme Court Decision 96Hu924 delivered on February 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 774) Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu1086 Delivered on August 19, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1520)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Na-young, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2008Heo8297 Decided October 30, 2008

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The classification of goods under Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is classified for the convenience of trademark registration, and it does not define the scope of similarity of goods. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the goods belong to the same kind of product classification and are the same or similar goods (see Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1285 delivered on December 2, 1994). Whether the designated goods are similar shall be determined on the basis of whether the use of a trademark identical or similar to the compared goods is likely to be mistaken for the goods manufactured or sold by the same enterprise if they are used. However, the determination shall be made on the basis of the general transaction norms by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances such as quality, shape, use and production, sales sector, scope of transaction, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Hu924 delivered on February 14, 1997; 2003Hu1086 delivered on August 19, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the trademark of this case (application No. 2006- 54809), among the designated goods of the trademark of this case (application No. 2006- 5489), "medical temperature" among the designated goods of the trademark of this case and 1 (registration No. 101568), "the prior registered trademark of this case (registration No. 145208)," "the designated goods of the 2 (registration No. 145208) of the prior registered trademark of the court below's holding that the trademark of this case does not fall under the scope of the designated goods of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trademark of this case, the trademark of this case, such as "the artificial airport for patients/urines", "the artificial airport for patients/urines for patients", "the scope of similarity between the designated goods of this case and the designated goods of this case," and the trademark of this case.

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 Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)