beta
(영문) 대법원 1979. 1. 23. 선고 77후20 판결

[등록상표무효][집27(1)행,14;공1979.5.15.(608),11779]

Main Issues

Similar under the registered trademark “KFLDIN” and “KenyaIN”, where the trademark is crossed “KLDIN” in English.

Summary of Judgment

If the designated goods are the same or similar, the registered trademark “KFLDIN” and “Kenyaidine” are crossed the national language, and under which the English language “KSDIN” is crossed the English language is considered to be similar to the name and appearance, thereby causing misconceptions as to the quality of the goods.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 5 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act (Law No. 2506 of February 8, 1973)

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 68Hu25 Decided September 17, 1968

Claimant-Appellee

Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Liuri L&W

Appellant, appellant-Appellant

Patent Attorney Shin Chang-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

original decision

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 35 of May 11, 1977

Text

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the person who requested the appeal.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal by the respondent.

On November 1, 1965, the court below held that the registered trademark "KFLIN" was crossed out of the English language, "KFLDIN" on January 6, 1966, and it is reasonable to see Article 10 of the former Trademark Act as if the claimant applied for registration on January 6, 1965, and the registered trademark "IFLIN" and "IFLIN" did not appear to be identical to the designated goods under Article 10 of the former Trademark Act (see Article 17 of the former Trademark Act, see Article 17 of the same Act, see Article 5 of the former Trademark Act, 9 of the same Act, and subparagraph 2 of the same Article of the same Article of the same Act and subparagraph 1 of the same Article of the same Article of the same Article, and it cannot be seen to be invalid if the claimant applied for registration on March 24, 1973.

Therefore, it is dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The bearing of litigation costs is governed by Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)