Whether "ARBID" and "ARVIT" are similar under the Trademark Act

The original trademark is called "ARBD" by the term "ARBD", and the cited trademark is generally called "arobroom" by the "ARVIT" of the English language, and both trademarks are similar in terms of the name and the two trademarks are different in terms of the sound of the two names. The two trademarks are not similar in terms of the trademark.

Article 5 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act

Trobbidine cnbbb, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Director of the Patent Bureau

Patent Trial Decision 244 delivered on February 19, 1975 No. 244 of Patent Trial Decision 1974

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

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the appellant for appeal

When comparing the reasoning for the original decision, the court below confirmed the same facts as the time of the trial decision, and the original trademark is referred to as "ARBD" by "ARBD", and the quoted registered trademark is generally referred to as "ARV IT" under the English language "ARV IT" and thus, both trademarks should be deemed to be similar in terms of the above two names. The above two names are similar, and they are not identical, and they cannot be deemed to be similar in terms of the above two names and letters. Since they are not identical, they cannot be deemed to be similar in terms of the above two names and letters. The original trademark of this case and the quoted trademark of this case are similar in terms of the designated goods of the same kind, and the original trademark of this case were refused under Article 5 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the trademark similarity is identical or not, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trademark law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)