2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

(a) Details of the trial decision;

The Plaintiff filed for a registration invalidation trial on the instant registered trademark/service mark described below B of the Defendant, asserting that there exist grounds for registration invalidation falling under Articles 6(1)3, 7(1)4, 7(1)6, and 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 8190, Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same).

As to the above appeal, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that there is no ground for invalidation of the plaintiff's assertion in the registered trademark of this case.

B. The registered trademark/service mark of this case (hereinafter the registered trademark of this case)

(1) Composition:

(2) Date of application/registration decision/registration date/registration date/registration number: December 10, 1999/ November 29, 2000/ February 2, 2001

(c) Designated goods/service business: as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute]

2. Whether it falls under Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act

A. Criteria for judgment

Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act provides that "a trademark which is contrary to the public order or good customs" shall not be registered. Here, "a trademark feared to be contrary to the public order or good customs" includes not only cases where the composition of a trademark itself or the meaning or content that the trademark gives to ordinary consumers when used on the designated goods violates the public order or good customs, which is the normal moral sense of the general public, but also cases where the act of using the trademark intentionally by registering the trademark violates good customs, such as fair goods distribution order or international trust and morality (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Hu301, May 28, 2009; 2004Hu1267, Feb. 24, 2006).

(b) the Parties’ arguments;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant's trademark registration of this case is filed by reproducing his name without the consent of Magnam, which is well-known as artist, and recognizing the registration of this case as being considerably lacking social validity in the process of application and registration of the trademark of this case is contrary to the order of the trademark law. Thus, Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act is applicable.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since 1993, the Defendant had a close relationship with the Republic of Korea in the process of performing work together with the Sgumentor of the Republic of Korea, and had been promoting the construction of small art galleries in Daegu area at the request of the Republic of Korea, and filed for the instant registered trademark with the consent of the Republic of Korea in the process.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the name of the Republic of Korea is well-known

In 1963, White-Namn opened the first individual film in the German Balkn Republic of Germany in 1963 and started to receive attention from the world art world as the creator of the video set, and in 1969, it heard the reputation that the video set was incorporated into art set through a public performance with the Republic of Korea in the United States, that it was the winner who was the winner of the video set up in the art set up in the art set up in the Republic of Korea, and that it was the winner of the 10th art set forth in the 1996 German Balkn Republic of Germany in 196, that it was the winner of the 10th art set up in the 1997, that the 196th art set up in the 196th art set forth in the 196th art set forth in the 196th art set forth in the German Republic of Korea, that it was not a dispute between the parties to the 200th art set forth in the 196th art set.

According to the above facts, in the time of the decision to register the trademark of this case ( November 29, 2000), it was known to the general consumers of Korea as well as the name of the video artist.

(2) Whether the application process of the instant registered trademark consented to 00 South Korea

In the process of filing and registering the instant registered trademark with the Defendant’s consent, there are items of Evidence No. 4 and evidence No. 1 through No. 3 (including paper numbers) as to whether the Defendant consented to the registration of the instant registered trademark, but it is difficult to view that the Defendant consented to the White-Nam solely based on the above evidence as seen below, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

The evidence No. 4 is submitted to the Korean Intellectual Property Office at the time of the application for the trademark of this case, and the content is stated as “the defendant professor permits the construction of the 00 South Korean Art Gallery in Daegu.” This is merely a reference to only the part concerning the construction of the art gallery that is not related to the application for the trademark of this case, and it cannot be deemed that there was the consent of the 00 South Korean Intellectual Property Office regarding the application for the trademark of this case pursuant to the evidence No. 4.

In a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant trial decision, the Defendant submitted evidence Nos. 1 through 3 to prove that the consent was obtained from the Republic of Korea. The evidence No. 1 stated that “The Defendant would permit the construction of the YYTTTT in Daegu,” and the evidence No. 2 stated that “The Defendant would also permit the construction of the YTTTTTTTTT in Daegu,” and that “I will audit the Defendant’s professor to establish the YTM in Korea with his efforts to establish the YM. I wish to am for ambling with the help of the Nonparty. I wish to ambling with the help of the Non-Party C, and I would like to build the YTTTTT in Daegu, and the evidence Nos. 3/28/99, and Nos. 3-1 and 2 stated that “The Defendant would establish the YTTTTTTTTTTT in August 200,” respectively, and it is difficult to view the above content of the instant registered trademark as a whole.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that, at the time of the application for the trademark of this case, the Defendant had a very close relationship to the degree that it would possess the balone photo of the Republic of Korea, and that the balone directly displayed it as the designated goods/service of the trademark of this case, and that the expression “patent goods” as stated in the evidence No. B No. 1 means the designated goods/service of the trademark of this case, which is directly indicated by 00 South Korea.

In light of the fact that the overall contents of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 submitted by the Defendant are merely understood as having the consent to the establishment of an art gallery, and that other trademark is not mentioned at all, the entry of “patent goods” in the part shall not be deemed as having the same meaning as the designated goods/service of the instant registered trademark, or as the basis for the consent to the application of the instant registered trademark, or not having the consent to the application of the instant registered trademark. If, as the Defendant’s assertion, the application is filed for the designated goods/service with a close relation to each other to the extent that the applicant possesses the bals of the instant registered trademark at the time of the application, and the 00-Nam-Nam applied for the direct indication in the classification of the designated goods as the designated goods. In light of the fact that it is more reasonable and clear to view that the document containing an expression of consent to the application of the trademark registration, rather than using an ambiguous expression as the “patent goods,” the Defendant’s assertion that the entry of “patent goods” in the instant registered trademark is without merit.

In other words, the defendant asserts that the defendant's consent to the application process of the trademark of this case is no longer problematic since the exclusion period of a trial for invalidation under Article 7 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act, which directly acknowledges as the grounds for invalidation, has expired.

However, the grounds for invalidation under each subparagraph of Article 7 (1) of the Trademark Act are judged individually by the grounds for invalidation. However, even if the period for exclusion of a trial to invalidate a trademark under Article 7 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act has expired in this case, this is only limited to the meaning that it is impossible to file a petition for a trial to invalidate a trademark under Article 7 (1) 6 of the same Act on the registered trademark of this case, and therefore, it is not deemed that there was the consent of 00 South Korea in the process of filing an application for the trademark of this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the registered trademark of this case is filed with a person who imitates the name of White Nam, which is well-known as a video list without the consent, and there is a ground for invalidation of the registration under Article 7(1)4 of the former Trademark Act, and the registration of this case should be invalidated without any need to further examine the remaining grounds for invalidation of the registration of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of this case with different conclusion is inappropriate, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Yong- Dis (Presiding Judge)