Application trademark "(negative)" and cited trademark "(negative)

In comparison with the trademark "the cited trademark", the trademark "the two trademarks are English in their appearance "Magle", but the cited trademark "the two trademarks" is a city with the figure expressing the intention of the trademark without the original trademark on the left side, while the original trademark is a combination of Korean and English people without the figure, and it is not necessarily similar. The original trademark "Sagle" is called "Sastar", and the cited trademark is called "Sagle" or "sagle," so both trademarks are different from each other in terms of general consumers or consumers, and both trademarks are different in terms of concept, but since only the "Magle" portion is not separately removed, and it cannot be deemed that the two trademarks are similar solely on the ground that the part is not a "Magle" but a trademark is considerably recognizable to the general public, and thus, the trademark cannot be seen as similar in terms of the general consumers' concept and concept of the origin of goods, and there is no concern to confuse the two trademarks in terms of the overall transaction.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dongyang Cement Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant and one other

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 88 Ba391 dated April 29, 1989

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below held that since the original trademark " in this part of the trademark " " means "the horse law, alcohol, technology, and CHEF" and "the main trademark " is "a separate, personal skill" and "the trademark in this part of the trademark " can be recognized as "the store," although it can be recognized as "the store," and "the store," it can be recognized as "the store," or "the store," and the cited trademark "CHF" can be recognized as "the store," or "the store," in light of the circumstances of the trade society that respects simple speed and speed, it can be recognized as "the store, etc." and the cited trademark "CHF" can be recognized as "MAGIC" or "CHEF", it is presumed that the cited trademark can be recognized as "MAIC" or "MAF" and it may be perceived as "the trademark in this part of the trademark "the store," but if it is recognized as "the trademark in this part of the trademark "MA" as "the similar trademark in this part of the trademark."

However, in determining whether a trademark falls under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, whether two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are similar shall be determined depending on whether there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods in light of the common sense of transaction by observing objectively, comprehensively, and differently from their appearance, name, and concept in terms of the appearance, name, and concept. Even if there are similar parts among trademarks, it is not likely to cause misconception or confusion when the parts constituting the essential part are different from each other (see Supreme Court Decision 85Hu89, Feb. 11, 1986; 86Hu127, Jun. 13, 1989).

However, when comparing this original trademark and the cited trademark, both trademarks are English "Magle" in their external appearance, but the cited trademark has a figure expressing the intention without the original trademark on the left-hand side, while the original trademark is merely similar in appearance because the Korean and English persons are combined with the original trademark without the figure, and the original trademark is not necessarily similar in appearance, and the original trademark is called "Maagle" or "Maagle", so both trademarks are different from each other in terms of general consumers or consumers, and both trademarks are different in terms of concept, but it cannot be deemed that only the part "Magle" was removed, and it cannot be deemed that the part "Magle" is considerably recognizable to the general public, and thus, it cannot be deemed that two trademarks are similar solely on the ground that the part "Magle" is removed.

In addition, even if both trademarks are observed in terms of appearance, name, and concept, it does not seem that the transaction of the designated goods is likely to cause mistake or confusion with the general consumers or consumers about the origin of the goods.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding that two trademarks are similar has affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the similarity of trademarks, and therefore, the argument on this issue is reasonable.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won