[1] The case holding that since the registered trademark " and the cited trademark " "" are identical to the name "AUDI AG" in both "AUDI" and "AUDIAG", a similar mark as a whole, or the cited trademark cannot be deemed to be a well-known well-known and well-known and well-known and well-known trademark or trade name among domestic or foreign consumers at the time of application for the registered trademark, it does not fall under Article 7 (1) 4, 6, 10, and 12 of the Trademark Act

[3] Whether it falls under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act because the registered trademark is likely to cause confusion between the cited trademark and the source of goods (negative)

[1] The case holding that since the registered trademark " and the cited trademark " "" are identical to the name "AUDI AG" as both "AUDI" and "AUDIAG", the trademark as a whole cannot be deemed to be a well-known well-known and well-known and well-known trademark or trade name among domestic or foreign consumers at the time of the application of the registered trademark, it does not fall under Article 7 (1) 4, 6, 10, and 12 of the Trademark Act

[2]The kinds of motor vehicles imported in our country are limited and domestically produced;

In light of the fact that the sale quantity of a motor vehicle is less than that of the motor vehicle, the registered trademark

"At the time of determining the registration of a trademark", "it is reasonable to see that "the trademark was known as the trademark right holder's trademark in the domestic general transaction of motor vehicles which are the goods for use," but the designated goods of the trademark are the goods for clothing such as Titts, Cheongz, Cheongbba, lockba, etc., and the goods using the cited trademark are motor vehicles such as automobiles. Since the quality, shape, and use of the goods are different and the scope of manufacturing, sale, and consumers are not overlap at all, they cannot be regarded as identical or similar goods, and even if considering today's tendency of diversification of business management, they do not recognize that ordinary consumers produce the goods from the manufacturer of the motor vehicle to the clothing goods, and thus, they cannot be viewed as goods having economic relation. Thus, even if the registered trademark is used as the designated goods, it cannot be said that there is any concern that ordinary consumers confuse the goods' delivery with the goods of the cited trademark right, and thus, the registered trademark does not fall under Article 7 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act.

[1] Article 7 (1) 4, 6, 10, and 12 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu412 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1111), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3975, 3982 delivered on February 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 666), Supreme Court Decision 99Hu2870 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 2094), Supreme Court Decision 99Hu2594 delivered on February 8, 200 (Gong200Sang, 591)

AUDI AG (Patent Attorney Kim Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Kim Jong-nam (Patent Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 31, 2002 on the case No. 1516 of 2001 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

Designated goods [Article 6(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act [Article 6(1) [Attachment 1] classification of goods(hereinafter referred to as “the classification of goods”): Pots, Titts, Pots, Purts, Gitrts, Paris, Sweitts, Cheongbts, Cheongba, Twits, Titrts, Titts, Gitrts, Titrts,

B. Contents of the cited trademark

(1) A cited trademark 1

(a) Registration number: No. 177534;

(B) Date of registration (filing date): August 24, 1989 ( March 5, 1987)

(C) Marks:

(d) Designated goods (Classification of goods): 'Fire Fighting Vehicles of Category 9', 12', 'Vehicles, trucks, buses, Tracers, ambulances, ambulances, irrigation cars, dumpcars, booms, sports motor vehicles, permanent motor vehicles, sea-stops, parking cars, automatic third-wheeled parking cars, automatic wheelers, cleaning cars, automatic wheelers, cleaning cars, cridges, freezing cars, tanks, tanks, snow carriages, parking cars, transportation machinery and appliances, tubes for transportation machinery and appliances, and 'motor vehicles' of Category 13.

(1) A cited trademark 2

(a) Registration number: No. 154968;

(B)The date of registration/ the date of registration for the renewal of the duration (the date of application): May 27, 198/ May 27, 1997

March 31, 1987

(C) Marks:

(D) Designated goods [Attachment 1] Item 37 of Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 83 of Feb. 23, 1998): Automobiles, trucks, buses, list of goods : Tracers, ambulances, ambulances, fire engines, rescue cars, dump trains, dump cars, dump cars, scars, brugs, sports cars, permanent cars, lag-free cars, parking cars, lock-out cars, electric cars, automatic three-wheeled ones, automatic three-wheeled ones, auto-wheeled ones, cleaning cars, automatic car, cleaning cars, bridges, caters, caters, wrespons, lock-out cars, wrespons,

B. Details of the instant trial decision

The plaintiff's trademark 1, 2 and 2 of the plaintiff's quoted trademark 1, 2 and

U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2083439 "(hereinafter referred to as "human trademark 3") and oil

G. As a result, a petition was filed for a trial seeking invalidation of the registered trademark of this case on the grounds that the registered trademark was registered in violation of Article 7(1)4, 10, 12 of the Trademark Act.

Accordingly, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial decision on January 31, 2002, which dismissed the plaintiff's request for a trial on the grounds as stated in paragraph (c).

C. Summary of the reasoning for the instant trial decision

(1) Whether the registered trademark of this case and the cited trademark are similar

(A)The instant registered trademark is not similar to the cited trademark 1, but is similar to the cited trademark 2 and 3.

(b)The designated goods and the designated services of this trademark and of the quoted trademark 1 to 3 are not similar.

(2) Whether it falls under Article 7(1)4, 10, 11, and 12 of the Trademark Act

(a)The trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7 (1) 4 and 10 of the Trademark Act, since the trademark 1 or 3 is registered domestically and abroad in relation to a motor vehicle and the goods of the cited trademark are advertised and sold in Korea to a certain extent, and it cannot be deemed that the trademark of this case reached a certain level of well-known and well-knownness.

(b)The above cited trademarks are known from the category of automobiles as trademarks of a specific person, while the designated goods of the trademark of this case are clothes, even if they are used in the designated goods, they cannot be said to cause general consumers to confuse the place of goods with the plaintiff's goods or to mislead consumers as to the quality of the goods. Thus, the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act.

(c)It is difficult to view that the above cited trademarks are not widely known in Korea, and that the cited trademarks 2 and 3, at the time of application or decision of registration of the trademark of this case, are widely known among foreign consumers abroad, and there is no economic relation between the designated goods 2 and 3 of the cited trademark of this case, and therefore, the trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act.

2. Summary of the grounds for revocation of the trial decision asserted by the Plaintiff

A. The instant registered trademark and the cited trademark 2 are similar trademarks, the same as the arrangement and title of the alphaba, and the instant registered trademark is identical to one another. The instant trademark imitates the creative hair of the cited trademark 1, which is widely known as a motor vehicle, and thus, is directly aware of the Plaintiff’s trademark “afyi” which is widely known as a motor vehicle. As such, the instant registered trademark and the cited trademark 1 are similar trademarks that are used in the same or similar goods, which are likely to cause mistake and confusion

(b)The instant registered trademark is a trademark which imitates the cited trademark 1 and 2 combined with the cited trademark 1 and 2, and is also a trademark which imitates almost the creative reproduction hub of the cited trademark 3 as it is, and is highly likely to impair a sound commercial order and a friendly relationship between international and commercial transactions by taking advantage of the credit and customer smoking personnel of the cited trademark; therefore, it is in violation of Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act;

(c)In the event that goods bearing the instant registered trademark are distributed in a widely known manner to the general consumers at the time of application for the trademark of this case, general consumers may be confused as goods of those persons having special relations with the cited trademark such as the Plaintiff or the cited trademark users, and thus, it is in violation of Article 7(1)10 and 11 of the Trademark Act.

(d)The instant registered trademark has the same character composition and name as the cited trademark widely known domestically and abroad, and is registered with the intent to dilution the function of indicating the source of the cited trademark, and is also registered with an unfair intent to obstruct the Plaintiff’s entry into the domestic market by pre-afusing a trademark registration with the intention to dilution the function of indicating the source of the cited trademark, and by pre-afusing the Plaintiff’s trademark registration with the intention to not obtain the trademark registration for clothing, etc. in the Republic of Korea. Therefore, Article 7(1)12 of the

(e)The instant registered trademark contains an abbreviation of the Plaintiff’s well-known trade name, “AUDI AG” (hereinafter referred to as “AUD 4”) and thus contravenes Article 7(1)6 of the Trademark Act.

3. Determination

A. Whether the registered trademark of this case and the cited trademark are similar to the marks

(1) The trademark 1 of this case and the cited trademark 1 of this case are clearly different in appearance from each other in terms of the shape of diagrams and the combination of letters. The trademark of this case is referred to as the "Arid", while the cited trademark 1 of this case cannot be deemed to have a special name, it is different in terms of the name since it cannot be deemed that there is a special name, and all of them cannot prepare for its concept since there is no special concept, it is a mark as a whole not similar to each other

(2) The trademark of this case and the cited trademark 2 to 4 are all referred to as "Aridy" and are identical in its title, and are similar as a whole.

B. Whether this case’s registered trademark falls under Article 7(1)4, 6, 10 and 12 of the Trademark Act

(i)whether the trademark 2 or 4, at the time of the application for the trademark of this case, is widely known, well-known, well-known or trade name which is recognized as a trademark of a particular person between domestic or foreign consumers;

(A) Facts of recognition

[Grounds for recognition: Evidence No. 5, 6, 12, 13, Evidence No. 7-3, 5, 6, Evidence No. 15-1 through 4, 6, 8 through 12, 14, Evidence No. 20-1 through 46, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments No. 20]

(1) The plaintiff is a manufacturer of motor vehicles which produce motor vehicles, etc. established in Germany by Hohman (HORCH) in 1899 and uses the quoted trademark 4 as part of each other from 1910.

② On July 29, 1997, the Plaintiff registered trademarks including the cited trademarks 4 using the designated goods as cars, etc. with 46 countries including Germany, and in particular, on November 11, 1986, the cited trademarks 3 using cars and their parts as the designated goods in the United States, and on November 11, 1986, the cited trademarks 4 using the cited trademarks as the designated goods.

(3) On November 30, 1995, the cited trademarks 2 and 4 shall be registered in the Foreign Trademark Data Book issued by the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

④ Articles that include 11 domestic major daily newspapers, such as tidal wave, tendency newspapers, Easterns, ECONMIT, etc. from March 31, 1990 to May 13, 199, including "AUD" or "AUDI" were posted 323 items. Among them, there were reports on the safety of Arid vehicle, the sales volume of North America area in October 198 and November 199.

(b) the sales board;

As seen above, from May 13, 199 at the time the Plaintiff applied for the trademark registration of this case, the trademark 2 to 4 of the cited trademark has been used for automobile-related products, such as automobiles until May 13, 199, and registered trademarks identical or similar to the cited trademark 2 to 4 in many countries around the world 40, and it is recognized in our country that the cited trademark 2 and 4 are listed in a foreign trademark data collection issued by the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and the automobile products produced by the Plaintiff through newspapers and news, etc. were introduced. However, the above cited trademark is merely a simple mention of the shape of use of the cited trademark, the method of business using the above cited trademark, the pattern of business using the above cited trademark, and the transaction records, etc., and it cannot be seen as a well-known well-known well-known trademark or trade name (or its abbreviation) that are clearly perceived among domestic or foreign consumers at the time of the application for the trademark registration of this case

(2) Whether the trademark of this case constitutes Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act

(A) The term "trademarks which are contrary to the public order or good customs" under Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act refers to a case where the composition of the trademark itself or the meaning or contents that the trademark gives to the general consumers in the event that the trademark is used for the designated goods are contrary to the public order or good customs and good customs, which is the normal moral sense of the general public. If the cited trademark is not well-known, it cannot be deemed as falling under Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act merely because the cited trademark is copied. Here, it refers to a well-known and well-known trademark in Korea.

(B) It is apparent from the composition of the trademark itself that the composition of the trademark itself or where the trademark is used for designated goods, the meaning or content to the general consumers cannot be deemed to violate the public order or good customs and good customs, which is the ordinary moral sense of the general public. As seen earlier, the cited trademark 2 through 4 cannot be deemed to be a well-known and well-known trademark as the Plaintiff’s trademark domestically at the time of the application for the trademark of this case. Thus, the application for registration of the trademark of this case identical or similar to the above quoted trademark does not contravene public order or good customs. Accordingly, the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7(1)4 of the Trademark Act.

(3) Whether the trademark of this case constitutes Article 7 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act

Article 7 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act provides that a trademark containing a well-known person's name, name or trade name, or its abbreviation shall not be registered, and whether another person's name or trade name is well-known shall be determined at the time of the application for trademark registration. Thus, as seen above, unless the cited trademark 4 cannot be seen to have been remarkably recognized at the time of the application for trademark registration of this case, the plaintiff's trade name cannot be deemed well-known. Thus, the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act.

(4) Whether the trademark of this case constitutes Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act

As seen earlier, the cited trademark 2 or 4 cannot be seen as a well-known trademark widely recognized among domestic consumers at the time of application for the trademark of this case, and thus, the trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act.

(5) Whether the trademark of this case constitutes Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act

In order for a trademark to fall under Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act, the cited trademark shall be an well-known and well-known trademark recognized as a trademark of a specific person between domestic or foreign consumers at the time of application. As seen above, the cited trademark 2 through 4 cannot be deemed as a well-known and well-known and well-known trademark among domestic or foreign consumers at the time of application for the trademark of this case. Thus, without any need to further examine, the trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act.

C. Whether the trademark of this case constitutes Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

(1) Facts of recognition

[Grounds for recognition: Evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 4, 8, 9-1 through 7, evidence No. 10-1, 2, 15-1 through 6, 8 through 15, and 21-1 through 4, respectively, and the purport of the whole statement and pleading of evidence No. 21-4]

(a)There was 619 articles containing 14 major domestic daily newspapers, such as Maddi" or AUDI from March 31, 1990 to March 29, 201, and 619 articles, including Maddi" or 'AUDI', among which the U.S. car expertise in the U.S., 'AAA62.7 Edivers' was considered as 1 Eddiddditer (97 points), and 'dditro News' was included in 10 model that is anticipated to attract human reporters in the U.S. in 200.

(b)The Plaintiff’s automobile product advertisements using the cited Trademark 3 or the cited Trademark 4 were published three times in the Chosun Day from October 4, 2000 to January 18, 2001, three times in the Central Tym21, three times in the East Asia, three times in the East Asia, and nine times in total in the domestic magazines, such as “dot21”, “GolfDest”, “WelfD group”, “ECONMIT”, “Maajest”, “Majest”, and “symster.”

(C) Our country's "Saman Roster", which imports the automobile produced by the Plaintiff, issued and distributed the car lags, etc. on April 30, 200 and June 30, 2000 on the Plaintiff Company's automobile.

(d)The results sold by the Plaintiff in each of the countries of the world other than Germany are total 409,573 units in 2000, total 473,935 units in 2001, total 207 units in 200, total 309 units in 200, total 309 units in 200, total 175 units in 200, total 7,997,63 units in 201, and total 2,544 units in our country.

(2) Determination:

In light of the above facts and facts acknowledged in Paragraph (1) (A) and the kinds of automobiles imported in our country are restricted and sold compared to domestic products, etc., it is reasonable to view that the cited trademark 2 through 4 was known to consumers or traders in domestic general transactions concerning automobiles which are goods used by the cited trademark 2 through 4 around March 29, 2001 at the time of the decision to register the trademark of this case.

The designated goods of the registered trademark of this case are clothing products such as Habbb, Titts, Cheongbba, and locked, and goods using the cited trademarks are automobile products such as automobiles. Both are different in their quality, shape, use, etc., and do not overlap in the production sector, sales sector, and the scope of consumers. Thus, even if we consider today's tendency of diversification of business management, it cannot be viewed as goods identical or similar to one another. In addition, even if we consider today's tendency of diversification of business management, general consumers do not recognize that the goods are manufactured from the manufacturing company to the clothing products, and thus, they cannot be deemed as goods with economic relation.

Therefore, even if the registered trademark of this case is used as the designated goods, it cannot be said that there is a concern for general consumers to confuse the place of goods with the Plaintiff’s goods. Thus, the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the registered trademark of this case cannot be deemed to have been registered in violation of the provisions of Article 7 (1) 4, 6, and 10 through 12 of the Trademark Act. Thus, the decision of this case is just, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judge Lee Jin-sung (Presiding Judge)