[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the registration of a specific person as a trademark cannot be deemed as violating the public order and good customs, and that the registered trademark cannot be said to have caused consumers to misunderstand the quality of the goods

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the registration of a specific person as a trademark cannot be deemed as violating the public order and good customs, and that the registered trademark cannot be said to be likely to mislead consumers as to the quality of the goods

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since it is clear that the name of the trademark of this case (registration number omitted) and the name of the trademark of this case, which is composed of the 1st century as well as the 6th anniversary of the fact that it was widely known to the general public, is not one of the designated goods, and there is no evidence to recognize that the trademark of this case, which is composed of 1st century, was used as a non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently long as the trademark of this case was non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently widely known and thus, it cannot be seen that the registered trademark of this case was non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently non-permanently widely known.

B. According to the records, the above recognition and determination by the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 6 (1) 1 through 4 and 7 of the Trademark Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the registered trademark of this case cannot be deemed to be contrary to the social public order or good customs in its composition, its meaning or content, and that the trademark of this case cannot be deemed to be a quality-based or consumer-only trademark because it cannot be deemed that the trademark of this case goes against the concept of justice or goes against the purpose of the trademark order system because it cannot be deemed that the trademark of this case goes against the concept of justice or goes against the purpose of the trademark order system because it cannot be deemed that the trademark of this case is widely recognized as non-designated cultural heritage for general consumers because it is difficult to regard the designated goods of this case as non-designated cultural heritage of this case.

B. According to the records, since the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to withdraw the application of the registered trademark of this case or expressed his intention to withdraw the application of the registered trademark of this case, the application or registration of the registered trademark of this case cannot be deemed to be an act in violation of the good faith principle, and barring special circumstances, the registration of the name as the trademark of this case cannot be deemed to be contrary to the good public order and good customs, and even if the mark is widely known in the name of the tin designated as cultural heritage, it does not indicate the quality of the trademark in relation to the trademark of this case. Thus, it cannot be said that the use of the registered trademark of this case would mislead consumers as to the quality of the goods.

Therefore, the above recognition and determination of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 7 (1) 4 and 11 of the Trademark Act.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

B. On January 17, 200, the registered trademark of this case was filed on January 17, 201, and the registered trademark of this case is subject to the above amended Trademark Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Trademark Act") pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda of the amended Trademark Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Trademark Act") as to a registration invalidation trial pursuant to Article 6414 of the amended Trademark Act. The former Trademark Act does not include "where it does not conform to the definition of the trademark under Article 23 (1) 1 through 4 of the amended Trademark Act" under Article 2 (1) 4 of the amended Trademark Act. Thus, the court below erred in holding that the registered trademark of this case has a ground for invalidation of registration under Article 23 (1) 4 of the amended Trademark Act by applying the amended Trademark Act to the registered trademark of this case, but there is no justifiable ground for invalidation under Article 23 (1) 4 of the amended Trademark Act. Thus, the ground for appeal to the effect that the registered trademark of this case contains no ground for invalidation under Article 23 (1) of the amended Trademark Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)