If designated goods are different from each other, the registration price of a trademark similar to a well-known trademark;

A trademark which may cause confusion with another person's goods or business recognized remarkably among consumers shall not be registered even if the designated goods are different.

Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Hu14 Decided April 23, 1985 82Hu27 Decided August 20, 1985

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

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 107 of the 1979 Appeal No. 107

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Although the reason for the original decision is insufficient, the purport of the original decision is not to determine that the trademark is used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the cited trademark, but to determine that the original trademark constitutes a reason for unregistered trademark under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act by deeming that it is a trademark likely to cause confusion with the goods or business of the cited trademark right holder because it is similar to the cited trademark widely recognized by consumers, and thus constitutes a reason for unregistered trademark under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act. As such, even if the designated goods are differently designated goods, a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with the goods or business of another person recognized remarkably among consumers is not registered, so the theory that there is a misapprehension of the legal principle as to the similarity of the designated goods in the original decision is merely an error of understanding the reason for the above decision of the original decision and is merely an error.

With respect to the second ground:

Then, the original decision on the ground that the trademark is identical or similar to the cited trademark on the ground that the cited trademark is identical or similar to the cited trademark on the ground that the cited trademark has been used for the main purpose of controlling Alinium as designated goods for 18 years from the time of application for the original trademark ( October 14, 1976) and is not designated goods, but is used in the joint trademark of the cited trademark from January 25, 1976, which is the transfer of the original trademark, for the purpose of using the trademark in the joint trademark of the cited trademark as the designated goods, such trademark is not designated goods, but it is obvious to the main body of consumers by making repeated publicity advertisements through the television program and radio, etc. of the original trademark, and thus, the cited trademark is acceptable by comparing the records, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles due to the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the process of litigation.

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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju