(b) the criteria for the classification of goods and the like of goods in this Article;

2. Article 53 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act does not stipulate the same kind of goods, but the same kind of goods as the convenience of trademark registration shall be determined according to the transactional norms in light of the actual condition of quality, use, shape, transaction, etc.

2. The grounds of appeal are examined.

(A) On No. 1:

It is the same as a theory that there is no explicit provision that a trial or lawsuit seeking partial invalidation or revocation of trademark concerning the former Trademark Act may be filed.

However, as long as the trademark law permits adjudication on invalidation or cancellation of a trademark, there is no provision on adjudication on invalidation or cancellation of part of the trademark, it shall not be denied immediately.

The purpose of the trademark system is to maintain the relationship between the trademark and the goods, thereby preventing the unfair competition that may be caused by the mistake of the trademark or the confusion of the goods, preserving the business reputation of the owner of the trademark, and protecting the trader and the consumer of the goods. Accordingly, under this objective, the trademark is not to seek a trial to invalidate part of the trademark itself, since (i) the trademark is permitted to invalidate or revoke part of the trademark under this objective, and (ii) the trademark is registered to the extent that it observess the letters, diagrams, symbols, or the combination thereof consisting of letters, diagrams, symbols, or the combination thereof, and determines whether or not to grant the registration, and thus, it is not possible to seek a trial to invalidate part of the trademark itself.

However, in a case where a trademark is registered with respect to two or more designated goods, it is reasonable to deem that only the designated goods which cause the invalidation can be claimed for a trial on invalidation. This does not mean that there is an unreasonable ground for trademark registration right holders, traders, consumers, interested parties, etc.

According to Article 19 of the former Trademark Act, a registered trademark interest holder may file an application for registration of goods or business similar to the designated goods in the same classification mark as the designated goods, and there is no doubt that the application for registration of additional registration can be filed if there is any ground provided for in Article 24 of the same Act, and Article 89 of the former Patent Act (Act No. 950) and Article 61 of the former Patent Act (Act No. 950) which applies mutatis mutandis to Article 26 of the former Trademark Act provides that a patent or business invalidation trial under Article 61 of the former Patent Act may be filed, and it can be seen that there is a ground for the nature of the patent, and Article 46 of the current Trademark Act also provides a provision on the trial of partial invalidation.

Under this view, the decision of the court below on the decision of the court below cannot be adopted, which differs from the just opinion.

(B) As to Section 2:

According to the original trial decision, it is identical to the theory of lawsuit that the appellant's assertion that the purport of the claim is not specified is not clearly mentioned. However, since the original trial decision is stated that the petitioner sought a trial decision like the order, it is understood that the claimant's claim was indirectly specified, and the record reveals that the claimant has changed the purport of the claim several times, but it is finally specified as the original decision. Therefore, there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

(C) On the third ground of appeal:

The original trial decision is a combination trademark with shapes and letters written under the same diagrams as seen in the record, "herb" and "herb" is a combination trademark with national letters marked on December 7, 1964. The designated goods registered as the designated goods of Category 18 Switzerland, luxing luxing, luxing, luxing, and luxing and registering a correction of goods in addition to the designated goods on June 4, 1973 have been registered in accordance with the Electrical luxing, Electrical lux, Electric Sluxing, Electric Sluxing, Electric Sluxing, Electric Sluxing, Mobing, Mobing, Mobing, Mobing, Mobing, Mobing, Mobbing, Mobing, Mobing, and Mobing, and the cited trademark (registration No. 2 omitted) was further registered with the Electric Fluxor's electric appliance's electric appliance and its accessory to the designated goods of Category 37.6.06.7.

Therefore, it can be seen that there is no room for theory that the registration goods of this case (registration No. 1 omitted) as of June 4, 1973 should be within the same classification under Article 19 of the former Trademark Act, and that the registration goods of this case belong to Chapter 39, not to Chapter 18, to which the initial registered goods belong, in the classification table under Article 53 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Product Act, and therefore, it can be known that the registration of this case is illegal and that the registration of this case is the goods of the designated goods of the same name is identical to the cited trademark, and if the designated goods are identical to the designated goods of the same kind, it may be said that the "misunderstanding of the goods" as stipulated in Article 19 of the former Trademark Act is "any goods identical or similar to the registered trademark, which are used for the same kind of goods, and which are applied for the same or similar goods, constitutes grounds for the invalidation of the registration of the trademark or the grounds for invalidation of the registration of the non-registered trademark.

I think that the trademark registration business has been divided into more than one part of the trademark registration business, and the same kind of product is not determined according to the trade norms in light of the actual condition of quality, use, transaction, etc. of the product. On the contrary, it is the opinion of the party members that the product belonging to the same kind of product in the above Schedule can be of the same kind, not like each other, and even if it belongs to different kind of product (see Supreme Court Decision 70Hu16 delivered on September 17, 1970) above, the first designated product in Ba-Appellee's first designated product in Ba-Appellee's (registration No. 2 omitted), electric appliances, electrical appliances, and electrical equipment among them cannot be seen as designated product to be used as exclusively, and there is no room to suspect that the above stated product added as the designated product and the product registered by the appellant and the product registered with the same kind of product in the above Schedule can be seen as identical or similar to those of electric spawning, electric spawning, electric e.g.

Nevertheless, the original trial decision is not an incomplete hearing but an incomplete hearing, and it is reasonable to reverse the original trial decision on the designated goods of the same kind as the electrical appliances, which led to the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the electrical appliances, boomed rice, the electric installations, the electric south, and the electric wires. Therefore, the original trial decision on the ground of its reasoning cannot be reversed.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges to reverse and remand the original trial decision.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice)