[거절사정][공1988.3.15.(820),454]
If a trademark identical or similar to a wellknown trademark is used for a non-identical product, the registration price shall be the register.
If a trademark is well-known among consumers, and if the trademark is used in a trademark identical or similar to the well-known trademark, the trademark shall be rejected in accordance with Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act or Article 9 (1) 111 of the same Act, in light of the modern industrial structure in which one company produces and sells many different kinds of goods in different fields of industry, in view of the fact that goods using the trademark are recognized as being produced and sold by a well-known owner of the trademark right or a person with a special relationship with the trademark, and thus it might mislead consumers as to the place of goods, and thus cause them to mislead consumers as to the mistake of the place of goods, business, confusion, or quality.
Article 9(1) of the Trademark Act
Supreme Court Decision 83Hu43 delivered on September 11, 1984, 85Hu97 delivered on March 11, 1986, and 85Hu115 delivered on November 25, 1986
Madn Pin Calton Patent Attorney Long-ro, Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 943 decided February 28, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that although the original trademark is a combination of figures and letters composed of two in English in black scalk, and the cited trademark is a trademark with the English character "Parker" and both trademarks are extremely similar in English, except for whether or not a rectangular figure exists, the cited trademark is a trademark which is a well-known trademark that has been used for a long time after being attached to various countries in the world including the Republic of Korea, and is widely known by an ombudsman, it is confirmed that the cited trademark is a well-known trademark to the category of machinery and equipment, such as the classification of goods of the original trademark, and the type of goods of the original trademark, even though it cannot be deemed that the cited trademark is well-known until the category of goods of the cited trademark, such as the cited trademark, are sold in Korea, so long as the goods of the cited trademark are likely to be sold in the Korean market, the cited trademark may cause mistake and confusion about the goods and source of the trademark recognized remarkably among consumers, pursuant to Article 9 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act.
2. If a trademark is widely recognized among consumers, if the trademark is used, it is identical or similar to the well-known trademark, and even if the designated goods are different from each other, one company's products are recognized as being produced and sold by a well-known trademark right holder or a person with a special relationship with such right holder in light of the modern industrial structure that produces and sells various different kinds of products in different fields of industry, and thus, it is likely to mislead consumers into mistake, confusion, or quality of the products and business by causing them to mislead consumers as to the delivery of products. Such trademark should be rejected in accordance with Article 9 (1) 10 or 11 of the Trademark Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Hu15, Nov. 25, 1986). While the reasoning of the decision of the court below in its reasoning points out, the decision of the court below is justified in its conclusion that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the original trademark right holder or the person with a special relationship with such right, and it is therefore justified in its conclusion that it is inconsistent with the legal principles as to cite or confusion of the origin of the trademark.
3. 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 Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)