Whether a trademark with different designated goods is similar to a combined trademark indicating “Salymbia display” and a new figure under the new figure (negative)

The trademark applied for the trademark "Safactation site" and the trademark "Safababababababab" among bedclothess and the cited trademark "babababababbab" containing blobabababbags and the aforesaid bedclothes as designated goods are completely different from the appearance, there is a difference in the name, and there is no possibility of confusion as to the origin of goods.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

claimant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 819 dated February 25, 1985 (Section 819) 1983

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the applicant.

In the application of Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, the similarity of trademarks should be determined depending on whether the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark is likely to cause confusion or misunderstanding as to the origin of goods in light of the common sense of trade of goods by observing the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark in a whole and in a different way.

According to the records, the trademark of this case is marked as "Saman Saco Display site" in Korean, and the cited earlier application trademark is a combined trademark under the new figure "Saco", and its designated goods are one display site among the goods of Class 1 goods and household units of Class 26 of the product classification, and the cited trademark is a fry site where the goods of this case contain the above bedclothes among the goods of Category 6 goods of Category 6 goods and bedclothess of Category 26 goods and the goods of this case are scood, scood, scood, bood, scood, scood, and bruters, etc., and the above two trademarks are observed. Accordingly, the cited trademark of this case is composed of six goods only in Korean, and the cited trademark is entirely different from the new figure and two goods are combined, and accordingly there is no difference in their names, and there is no possibility of confusion or confusion as to the origin of goods at all.

Ultimately, the court below's decision that the applied trademark of this case is illegal since it is deemed to be a similar trademark falling under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act and maintained the ruling of rejection. Therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

Therefore, the decision of the court below 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 judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)