[1] Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

[2] In a case where foreign company Gap, the holder of the right to registered trademark "," which is the holder of the right to registered trademark "," "," which is the holder of the right to registered trademark "," which is the designated goods, Eul, the internationally registered trademark " "," which is similar to the prior registered trademark, mark, and designated goods, filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the trademark, claiming that the registration should be invalidated pursuant to Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, but the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the petition, the case holding that the registered trademark is not similar to the prior registered trademark

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu3415 decided Nov. 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 260)

Aiona well-known character Sys Systru Systacom (Patent Attorney Cho Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Sygra Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macid

Patent Court Decision 2012Heo6793 Decided December 19, 2014

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on similarity of marks

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether the external appearance, name, and concept of a trademark is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods by observing the overall, objective, and separation from the perspective of ordinary consumers. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, names, and concepts is similar, if it is possible to avoid mistake or confusion as to the origin clearly based on the direct perception that ordinary consumers feel with respect to the trademark, it shall not be deemed similar (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu3415, Nov. 26, 2002, etc.).

The lower court determined that the instant registered trademark (international registration number No. 1012131) comprised of “the air pande for commercial equipment, commercial air pande, industrial air pande, and industrial pande,” etc. as designated goods and was not similar to the instant registered trademark (registration number omitted) composed of “the air pande for commercial equipment, commercial air pande, and industrial pande,” etc.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on determining similarity of trademarks.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate to apply this case because they differ from other cases.

2. As to the ground of appeal on similarity of designated goods

As long as the court below did not separately decide whether the registered trademark of this case and the pre-registered trademark are similar to the designated goods of both trademarks on the ground that the mark is not identical or similar, and maintained the trial decision of this case, the argument related to the similarity of the designated goods cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)