Korean Supreme Court on Trademark Similarity: TAGAGEL vs. TARGA
Translated Court Decision
Korean Supreme Court on Trademark Similarity: TAGAGEL vs. TARGA
Translated by Corey Colling, Certified Korean to English Translator
Korean Source Text (원문)
판시사항
상품류구분 제10류 위장용 약제를 지정상품으로 하여 출원된 본원상표 「TAGAGEL」과 제10류의 제초제 등을 지정상품으로 하여 출원된 인용상표 「TARGA」는 유사하다.
판결요지
본원상표 "TAGAGEL"은 상품류분류 제10류의 위장용 약제를 지정상품으로 하여 출원된 것이고, 선등록된 인용상표(1) "TARGA"와 인용상표(2) "타가"는 같은 제10류의 제초제 등을 지정상품으로 하고 있는데, 본원상표를 구성하는 뒷부분의 "GEL"은 교회체, 즉 물질의 상태를 의미하는 것으로서 지정상품인 위장용 약제는 GEL(교회체) 상태인 경우도 있으므로 그 지정상품의 형상을 표시한 것으로 인식되어 식별력이 없는 부분이다. 따라서 본원상표는 앞부분의 "TAGA"에 의해 호칭되고 두드러지게 인식되어질 것이며, 그 칭호에 있어서 인용상표(1) "TARGA"와 같이 가운데 "R" 소리가 있기는 하나 주로 약한 것이어서 "타-가"와 같이 장음으로 불리어지거나 또는 짧게 "타가"로 호칭되어질 것이고, 인용상표(2)도 "타-가"로 불리어질 것이어서 본원상표와 인용상표들간의 칭호는 거의 동일하다고 보여진다.
또한 본원상표의 지정상품인 "위장용 약제"와 인용상표들의 지정상품인 "제초제"는 모두 약제의 일종으로 상품류구분 제10류 약제류 상품군에 속해 있을 뿐 아니라 그 거래 및 판매도 주로 약사들에 의해 취급되고 있어 양 지정상품은 동종의 상품에 속한다고 할 것이다. 따라서 서로 유사한 본원상표와 인용상표들을 동종의 상품에 사용할 경우 일반수요자나 거래자가 상품의 출처에 관하여 오인, 혼동할 염려가 있으므로 본원상표는 구 상표법(1990. 1. 13. 법률 제4210호로 개정되기 이전의 것) 제9조 제1항 제7호의 규정에 의하여 등록을 받을 수 없다.
Note: 교회체 (膠回體) refers to a gel or colloidal state of matter; 칭호 = sound/pronunciation; 외관 = appearance; 관념 = concept (the three traditional axes of trademark similarity analysis under Korean law)
English Translation
Holding
The applied-for mark "TAGAGEL," designating gastric medicines in Class 10, is similar to the cited mark "TARGA," which is registered for herbicides and other goods in Class 10.
Summary of the Decision
The applied-for mark "TAGAGEL" was filed for gastric medicines in International Class 10, while the previously registered cited marks "TARGA" (Cited Mark 1) and "타가" (Cited Mark 2) cover herbicides and other goods in the same Class 10. The suffix "GEL" of the applied-for mark refers to a colloidal or gel state of matter, and since gastric medicines may take the form of a gel, this portion is recognized as descriptive of the goods' physical form and therefore lacks distinctive character. Accordingly, the applied-for mark is properly identified and pronounced by its leading portion, "TAGA." In terms of sound, although Cited Mark 1 "TARGA" contains a medial "R," that sound is weak, and the mark would ordinarily be pronounced as either an elongated "ta-ga" or simply "taga." Cited Mark 2 would likewise be pronounced "ta-ga." The pronunciations of the applied-for mark and the cited marks are therefore nearly identical.
Furthermore, the applied-for mark's designated goods ("gastric medicines") and the cited marks' designated goods ("herbicides") are both pharmaceutical products falling within Class 10. They are commonly handled by pharmacists in trade and sale, and accordingly belong to the same category of goods. If the applied-for mark and the cited marks, being similar to one another, were used on goods of the same category, ordinary consumers and traders would likely be confused or mistaken as to the source of the goods. The applied-for mark therefore cannot be registered under Article 9(1)(7) of the former Trademark Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 4210 of January 13, 1990).
Commentary
Sources:
대법원 1993. 7. 27. 선고 92후626 판결 (Supreme Court of Korea, Case No. 92후626, decided July 27, 1993).
특허청 1993. 2. 27. 심결, 사건번호 91 항원 1284 (Korean Patent Office decision of February 27, 1993).
특허와 상표 (Patent and Trademark), 제339호, September 20, 1993, p. 7. "最新 大法院 審·判決要旨 발췌."
구 상표법 (Former Trademark Act), Article 9(1)(7), as in force prior to amendment by Act No. 4210 of January 13, 1990.
Need a Korean patent or trademark decision translated with this level of precision?
We handle court rulings, office actions, prosecution files, and more.
The Korean Supreme Court spent most of this opinion on a single letter.
The applicant, attempting to register TAGAGEL for gastric medicine, ran into a prior registration for TARGA covering herbicides. Both sat within Class 10. The Korean Patent Office had refused registration on similarity grounds, and the Supreme Court agreed.
The court's analysis followed the standard three-part Korean trademark similarity test: appearance (외관), sound (칭호), and concept (관념). On appearance, the court found the two marks similar because TARGA's letters all appear within TAGAGEL with only the R missing. On sound, the court did something more interesting. It dissected the suffix "GEL" and found it non-distinctive, reasoning that gel is a physical state that gastric medicines sometimes take, and a mark cannot claim exclusivity over a description of the product's form. Strip GEL away and you are left with TAGA, which the court found phonetically near-identical to TARGA. The R sound, the court reasoned, is weak in this position, so TARGA reads as either "ta-ga" with elongation or simply "taga."
That phonetic reasoning is the part of the opinion most likely to surprise non-Korean readers. English speakers tend to hear the R in TARGA as a distinct consonant. Korean phonological intuition treats it as a glide or near-elision when sandwiched between vowels. The court was not making a special accommodation. It was describing how an ordinary Korean consumer would actually pronounce the mark when reading it aloud, and Korean trademark similarity analysis turns on the perception of ordinary consumers in the relevant market.
The opinion is also a useful artifact for understanding Korean trademark practice in the early 1990s, when registrations were governed by the old Trademark Act (구 상표법), the version that preceded the January 1990 amendment under Act No. 4210. The specific provision cited, Article 9(1)(7), survives in modern Korean law under different numbering as the prohibition against registering marks similar to prior registered marks for similar goods. The substantive test has not changed much. What has changed is the volume. By the early 1990s, Korean trademark filings were rising sharply, and decisions like this one began establishing the framework that the IPTAB and Patent Court still apply today.