A. Whether the use of a trademark consisting solely of foreign letters constitutes Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act for goods produced by a national;

B. Purport of Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act

A. The purport of Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act that makes it impossible to register a trademark that is likely to mislead or deceive consumers as to the quality of goods, is that the trademark itself indicates the quality of goods, such as the nature, efficacy, etc., and thus misleads consumers as to the quality of goods or refuses the registration of a trademark that is likely to mislead consumers as to the quality of goods, thereby allowing trademark registration only with foreign characters, as it is intended to protect consumers, and thus allowing trademark registration only with foreign characters, which is domestically manufactured and traded with foreign characters, cannot be said to be said to be likely to cause confusion as to foreign goods by using a trademark consisting of foreign characters only of the goods produced by a national in the current free transaction situation.

B. The provision of Article 3 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act provides that an indication of the national character and bottle in a foreign trademark constitutes the scope of application under Article 14-2(2) of the Trademark Act without changing the purport of application, and thus, it cannot be said that the provision restricting the registration of the trademark only with the foreign language is not a provision restricting the registration of the trademark under

(a) Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act; Article 3 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act

Patent Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 85 Section 970 dated July 25, 1986

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant's agent are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below interpreted that the trademark that is likely to mislead or mislead consumers as to the quality of goods prescribed as a trademark that cannot be registered under Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act includes a trademark that might cause misconceptions as to the place of goods' delivery by causing them to confuse domestic goods into foreign goods, and supported the original decision denying the registration of the original trademark by applying Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act on the grounds that Article 9(1)11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act provides that if the trademark is applied only with foreign letters, it may cause confusion as to the place of goods' delivery to ordinary consumers or consumers by causing them to confuse the goods' delivery into foreign letters if it is used for foreign words as designated goods.

The purport of Article 9 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, which makes it impossible to register a trademark that is likely to mislead or deceive consumers of the quality of goods, is to protect customers by misleading the quality of goods or refusing the registration of a trademark that is likely to mislead consumers of the quality of goods by stating the character, efficacy, etc. of goods in the trademark itself. Thus, it cannot be said that free trade practice might cause confusion with foreign goods by using a trademark consisting of foreign characters only of foreign characters, by allowing trademark registration only with foreign characters, by allowing the trademark registration only of foreign characters.

In addition, the provision of Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act provides that the parallel indication of the foreign letters in the trademark falls under the scope of not changing the purport of the application under Article 14-2 (2) of the Trademark Act, and it cannot be said that the above provision limits the registration of the trademark only with the foreign letters.

The refusal of the registration of the original trademark on the ground that it was composed solely of foreign letters on the basis of Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act and Article 3 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act cannot be said to have committed an unlawful violation of law by misapprehending the above legal principles. The grounds for appeal are with merit.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a retrial by reversal of the original trial decision. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)