Whether or not the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark

In comparison with the cited trademark such as the trademark "(ge. 1)" and the trademark "(g. 2)" which is the trademark for which an application is filed by an earlier application, a general consumer who stands for the applied trademark is able to reduce reading from the figure which is the constituent part, and from the "Egleland," the concept of "Egleland," "Egleland," etc., the applied trademark and the cited trademark are similar to the concept, and the trademark for which an application is made and the cited trademark are made are different from the trademark, and the trademark for which an application is made and the cited trademark are made may cause confusion as to the source of goods. However, as the trademark for which an application is made and the cited trademark are also different from the trademark for which an application is made and the cited trademark are made, the two trademarks are similar when they are referred to as a whole, and thus, if two trademarks similar to the concept and name are used for the designated goods of the same kind, they are likely to cause confusion as to the source of goods.

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

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Patent Attorney Park Byung-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office’s appellate trial decision 91Na2021 Dated February 27, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant are examined.

The court below held that, in comparison with the cited trademark such as the "Egrae1" which is the original trademark which was rejected on October 30, 1991 after the applicant filed an application on October 16, 199, and the "Egrae2" which is the trademark of another person by earlier application, ordinary consumers who stand the original trademark have a sense of reading from the figure which is the constituent part of the trademark, and even from the "Egraland," the concept of "Egraland," the original trademark and the cited trademark are similar to their concept, and the name and cited trademark are similar to the original trademark, and there is no difference between the original trademark and the cited trademark after the original trademark are referred to and known, but it is similar to the above two trademarks, so it is not erroneous in the judgment of the court below as to the origin of goods or the relation between the original trademark and the designated goods under Article 7 (1) of the Trademark Act, since there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the original trademark and the cited trademark are similar to the original trademark.

Therefore, the appeal by the applicant is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)