Whether the trademark is similar to the cited trademark consisting of the part of Ri and the GT+4 of this article and the model of repair model in the region containing the mark “EGLE” and “EGGGLIDER” (affirmative)

As the trademark in English bearing "EGGLE" and "GT+4" are the main trademark in English and the trademark in English at the center of the two parts of the trademark in the center of the world, as if the two trademarks are being used as a model of repair, "EGGGGLRRER" are marked in English at the center of the world, and at the bottom of the trademark in Korean, "EGGGGLRRER" cannot be said to be identical in its appearance as a whole. However, the cited trademark in Korean at the center of the two parts cannot be deemed to be identical in its appearance. However, if two trademarks are used as a "EGLE" in light of the common commercial practices consisting solely of their distinctive parts, there is no difference in their names, and if both trademarks are referred to as a "EGGLE", the remaining parts of the parts of the two trademarks are merely the same as those attached to all other parts, and if they are used as a whole, there is a concern that the two trademarks can be confused with the two designated goods.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1462 delivered on March 13, 1990

further, a patent attorney Gangnam-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant, who is in charge of the management of the shares of the State.

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

The Appeal Tribunal No. 279 decided on July 21, 1989 by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 279

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the cited trademark "E" in English and "GGGLE" are identical to the original trademark "E" in English and its main trademark "GT+4 in the center of the nesnes, which used a model of reading a two day to obtain the earth's license, and the cited trademark "EGGGLRDR" in English at the center of this part of this part cannot be deemed to be identical to its appearance as a whole, but the cited trademark "EGLE" in Korean at the bottom of this part cannot be deemed to be identical to its appearance. However, the two trademarks are similar to the original trademark "EGLE" in co-ownership of the English name "EGLE" only with a specific part of this part, and there is no difference between the two trademarks in its name and the other trademark "EGGL" in its name, and there is no possibility of confusion as to the designated goods as a whole, and in light of the above legal principles, the two trademarks are similar to the other trademark "EGLL" in the two parts.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)