A. Requirements to use a trademark under Article 2 (4) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) as a trademark that is publicity or advertising of the trademark

(b) The case holding that it cannot be deemed an act attaching a trademark on the designated goods only by the advertisement of the registered trademark or advertisement of the advertisement;

A. The use of a trademark under Article 2 (4) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) includes not only the use of a trademark directly for designated goods, such as attaching a trademark on goods or packaging of goods, but also the act of displaying or distributing a trademark on goods, i.e. the act of advertising or advertising the trademark. It should be done in relation to the designated goods, but it can be deemed that the use of a trademark has been carried out in a situation where the designated goods are actually distributed in Korea or are scheduled to be distributed at least in preparation for distribution.

(b) Where the registration number and trademark of the registered trademark are entered in the newspaper which advertised or advertised the registered trademark, and the purport of the advertisement is difficult to be considered as an advertisement of the designated goods, or it is difficult to view that at least the designated goods are in the actual condition of circulation or preparation of distribution at the time of the advertisement, and the advertisement alone cannot be considered as an act attaching a trademark on the designated goods.

Article 2 (4) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1240,1257 delivered on July 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1707);

Patent Attorney Kim Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Patent Attorney Lee Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 465 Dated December 28, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The use of a trademark referred to in Article 2 (4) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1350, Jan. 13, 1990) is directly used for designated goods such as attaching a trademark on goods or packaging of goods (Article 2 (4) 1 and 2 of the former Trademark Act). It includes activities of displaying or distributing a trademark on goods, i.e., advertising or advertising activities on a trademark (Article 2 (4) 3 of the former Trademark Act). It is not only necessary to conduct activities related to designated goods, but also the use of a trademark should be deemed to have been conducted in the actual circulation of the designated goods in Korea or at least in planned circulation and preparation (see Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1240, 1257, Jul. 10, 1990).

However, according to the records, Eul evidence No. 4, who advertised and advertised the registered trademark of this case, stated that the registration number and trademark of this case are stated, and that the above trademark is likely to mislead or confuse the two trademarks with the misunderstanding of the complurter and electronic amusement equipment (Class 39), so it is difficult to regard the purpose of the advertisement as an advertisement of the designated goods, and it is difficult to view that the designated goods are actually distributed at the time of the advertisement, or that at least the designated goods are scheduled to be distributed at the time of the advertisement, or that the advertisement of Eul evidence No. 4 cannot be deemed as an act of attaching a trademark on the designated goods.

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the newspaper advertisement with Eul evidence No. 4 alone is hard to be seen as an act of distributing a trademark by attaching it to the advertisement of goods with the appearance of using the trademark under Article 2 (4) 3 of the former Trademark Act is acceptable in light of the records, and there is no error of law as pointed out. The argument is without merit.

2. The original trial decision was registered on February 26, 198, and evidence Nos. 6 through 11, 13 through 17 among the supporting evidences that the respondent used the registered trademark of this case after the registration of this case, is merely the purport that the respondent used the registered trademark of this case after April 19, 1989, which is the date of the request for a trial, and it is not evidence that the trademark of this case was used within one year after the registration of this case, and it does not affect the grounds for revocation of trademark registration under Article 45(4) of the former Trademark Act, and it is difficult to say that the evidence Nos. 19 was used on the designated goods after the date of the request for a trial of this case, and the statement No. 18 et al. al. 20 through No. 24 after the date of the request for a trial of this case, and there is no violation of the law by the court below's finding that the registered trademark of this case was not used on the designated goods of this case.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)