A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

(b) the parts of the main trademark “Kenya” and the cited trademark “KPEDEX”;

A. Whether a trademark is similar should be determined by examining the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark as a whole and separately, depending on whether the transaction of the designated goods is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods based on the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel about the trademark.

B. Main trademark "Kenya" and cited trademark "KPEEX" are very similar in terms of their names and external features.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Hu43 Delivered on September 11, 1984

Bangladesh Group Ethyd Attorney Lee Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 163, Apr. 30, 1985

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 the similarity of a trademark is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods in the transaction of the designated goods by observing the appearance, name, and concept as a whole and separately, and by observing the appearance, name, and concept as a whole, depending on whether the transaction of the designated goods is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods.

According to the records, the trademark in this case is a text trademark marked in Korean and English, and the cited trademark is a text trademark written in Korean and English, which has a difference between "KPEDEX" and "dex". First, in relation to the title, although there is a difference between "ex" and "dex", the development of the name as a whole is extremely similar, in the appearance of the Korean part, and there is a difference between "ex" and "dex" in the appearance, as well as in the appearance, there is a difference between "ex" and "ex" in the English part, and in the appearance of the cited trademark, there is a difference between "ex" and "ex" in the English part, and in the cited trademark, the cited trademark contains the English part without the applied trademark. Therefore, in comparison with the above name, appearance and concept as a whole, the general trader or consumer is not likely to confuse the above trademark as to the designated goods' source, and thus, it is not likely to cause confusion as to the above goods' source.

Although the original adjudication is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, the conclusion that the trademark is similar to a trademark is justifiable and the conclusion is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether the trademark is similar to the trademark, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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 Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)