Decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal 11. HD on 09/10/2006 dated 2005/9355 E. 2006/9933

"The plaintiff and his representative stated that the objection of the client is that the applicant has acted in the field of medicine and that the trademark" ACTOS "registered on 27.01.2000 is owned by the 5th product and that the claimant has applied to register the" ATOKS` statement in the 2nd, 3rd and 5th class " . claiming that the two marks are identical and that their marks are well-known. demanded the cancellation of his decision and sue. Respondent TPE. the deputy demanded the rejection of the case by arguing that the decision was in place. The other defendant did not respond to the case.

According to the Court, the claims, the defense and the documents in the file, it is clear that these receivers are not semantically identical to each other, as the products of the 5th party to which the party markers belong are drugs for human health and potential consumers of these products are thought to be doctors and pharmacists. , the pronunciations and spellings are different, there is no similarity in visual, verbal and meanings, and the fact that the plaintiff has benefited from or damaged the plaintiff's case has not been proven. The case was rejected on the grounds that the plaintiff's trademark was not a recognized trademark pursuant to Article 7/1-i, in which the KHK had no similarity or affiliation in the sense of 8/1-b. "