The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that as long as the cited trademark had been recognized as a well-known trademark among domestic consumers at the time of application for the trademark, the application for and registration of the cited trademark has undermined the distinctiveness of the cited trademark, and accordingly there is a ground for invalidation of registration as provided by Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act on the registered trademark.

[1] Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act

E.B. L.W. L.C. Z. (Patent Attorney Song Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongyang et al. (Patent Attorney Seo Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2002Heo1935 delivered on February 7, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Comprehensively taking into account the selected evidence, the lower court acknowledged the Plaintiff’s trademark “SARAFT” as the Plaintiff’s 2nd 0th 2nd 6th 2nd 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 66th 66th 6666th 198 7th 1966666, 1966, 1966, 1966, 196, 2nd 9th 9th 9666, 2nd 9th 196, 2nd 9th 966, 2nd 196, 3th 966666, 2nd 9th 1966, 3th 966666, 3006, 3006, 400th 196.

Furthermore, the court below held that the plaintiff's trademark is a well-known trademark already known among customers of computer game software or general consumers around February 25, 199, although the plaintiff's trademark is short of time from the time when the goods were released in Korea to the date of application of the trademark of this case, considering the following factors: (a) the sales process and size of the plaintiff's trademark products, the characteristics of the user's trademark products, and the nature and scope of the social, economic and cultural ripple effects brought about the plaintiff's trademark products; and (b) the plaintiff's trademark of this case and the plaintiff's trademark of this case are similar trademarks when the whole, objective, and separation observation is made; (c) although the plaintiff's trademark of this case are frequently used as prior words, "STRAFT" and "CCRT" are used, which are the elements of the plaintiff's trademark, and thus, it can not be easily found that the plaintiff's trademark of this case's trademark of this case is dilution with the plaintiff's trademark of this case's famous trademark of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's trademark of this case's trademark of this case.

2. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's finding of facts and determination of the court below that there are grounds for invalidation of the trademark of this case under Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal, since the plaintiff's trademark was already recognized as a well-known trademark among domestic ordinary consumers at the time of the application for the trademark of this case, as long as the plaintiff's trademark of this case is well-known.

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 Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)