A. Purport of Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act

Article 9 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act provides that "a trademark which causes or threatens to cause a misunderstanding of the quality of goods or to deceive consumers" shall not be registered. It does not aim to protect the existing trademark, but if a trademark widely recognized as a trademark of a specific person is used on goods of another person, it would cause ordinary consumers to mistake or confuse the goods of another person as the goods of another person. Thus, the purpose of Article 9 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act is to prevent such misunderstanding or confusion among general consumers as to the quality, origin, etc. of goods and to protect trust in a trademark widely recognized as

B. In order to exclude the trademark registration of another person under Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act, it is required that a particular person’s trademark is widely recognized among consumers.

Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Hu156 delivered on March 10, 1987

Patent Attorney Hwang-soo et al., Counsel for the applicant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 1986 No. 77 dated March 17, 1987

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that since the trademark is applied for the goods of various kinds, such as the raw volume, leather, and leather species, which are the goods classification No. 23 as designated goods, and its appearance is identical to the trademark "beneton" of the Berne Group of Baguri, which is the cited trademark, since its appearance is identical to the trademark "benton" in the name (hereinafter referred to as "benton") and it is identical to the trademark in the name (hereinafter referred to as "benton tons"), the trademark and the quoted trademark should be deemed similar to the trademark, although it is not possible to recognize the goods of the cited trademark as designated goods of the original trademark, even if the cited trademark is registered and used by the domestic person, the ordinary consumers cannot be registered as the goods of the cited foreigner, which are the trademark right holder, as it is likely to mislead consumers.

However, Article 9 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act provides that "a trademark likely to mislead or mislead consumers as to the quality of goods" shall not be registered. It is not intended to protect the existing trademark. If a trademark widely recognized as a trademark of a specific person is used on goods of another person, it would cause ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse the goods of another person. Thus, if it is used on goods of another person, it is intended to prevent confusion and confusion among ordinary consumers as to the quality and origin of such goods, and protect trust in a trademark widely recognized as a trademark of a specific person (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu156, Mar. 10, 1987). In order to exclude trademark registration of another person under the above provision, a specific person's trademark should be widely recognized among the traders and consumers (see Supreme Court Decision 85Hu92, Jan. 21, 1986).

Nevertheless, the court below, on the one hand, acknowledged that a trademark which is a trademark of foreign country is not a well-known trademark widely known among consumers, but on the other hand, held that if a trademark which is similar to the cited trademark is registered and used by a domestic person, it may mislead consumers by mistake of the origin of the trademark as the goods of the quoted trademark owner, shall be determined by the above legal principles or by mistake of the origin of the goods as the goods of the quoted trademark owner, and therefore, the appeal

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)