(a) If the name of the applicant who is a juristic person and another name are applied for as trademark, the method of determining whether it might disturb the public order or good public morals or deceive consumers;

(b) The case holding that the trademark "THNNBY CLOHING COPY" applied for "A. E. Z. Z. Z. Z. Z. Z. Z. C. C.C. COPY" is not likely to disturb public order or good public morals, or to mislead consumers;

A. Whether the name of an applicant, which is different from that of an applicant, is likely to disrupt the public order or good customs, can not be determined uniformly and individually in specific cases. Whether a trademark is likely to mislead consumers should be determined by examining whether the trademark is likely to cause confusion between a well-known or well-known trademark and the trade name, on the premise that there is a well-known or well-known specific trademark, and whether the compared trademark might cause confusion between the goods or business and the source of the trademark holder of the well-known and well-known trademark, and if there is no well-known or unregistered trademark, there is no concern about confusion between consumers.

(b) The case holding that the trademark "THNNBY CLOHING COPY" applied for "A. E. Z. Z. Z. Z. Z. Z. C. C.C. COPY" is not likely to disturb public order or good public morals or to deceive consumers;

Article 9(1)4 and 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

x. E. B. H.C. (Patent Attorney Yellow-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 91Na708 dated November 30, 1992

The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for Appeal.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) The lower court determined that, in light of the fact that “THHING COPY” among the main trademark applied by the applicant, “THRN BY,” which is the main trademark applied by the applicant, is directly perceived as a public mark indicating the form of a legal entity, the ordinary consumers or traders are aware of the original trademark as “THORNN BY CYING COMPY,” which is a trade trademark, as it is an empirical rule of the general trade society, and thus, if the original trademark is used for designated goods, the ordinary consumers or traders are unlikely to recognize the goods as products produced and sold, or to exclude the recognition as companies with a special relation with the applicant, and thus, there is a concern that only the origin of the goods may cause consumers, and that it might cause any concern for consumers, and that it disturbs the public order and order, it may not be registered pursuant to Article 9(1)4 of the former Trademark Act.

(2) In a case where the name of an applicant who is a juristic person is filed for a trademark with another name, whether it is likely to disturb the public order or good customs, shall not be determined uniformly and individually in specific cases. Whether it is likely to mislead consumers shall be determined by examining whether a trademark is likely to cause confusion between a well-known or well-known trademark and a trade name, on the premise that there is a well-known or well-known specific trademark, and whether a similar trademark compared thereto is likely to cause confusion between the goods or business and the source of a trademark right holder of a well-known and well-known trademark, and if there is no well-known or unregistered trademark, it shall be determined that there is no concern for consumers only (see Supreme Court Decision 91Hu318 delivered on December 10, 191).

However, as recognized by the court below in this case, even though "THING COPY", the main trademark, as recognized by the court below, is likely to change the name of the applicant and be recognized as the name of another juristic person, it cannot be viewed as a trademark that is likely to disturb the public order or good customs and good customs of the applicant. Further, it is difficult to view that there is any element of consumer only on the ground that there is a concern about confusion between the source of the applicant and another juristic person, even if there is no other person's trademark than the main trademark, and even if there is no other person's application for trademark similar to the main trademark, it is obvious that the applicant's trademark is registered, even if there is no other person's trademark, it is not known in this case, or even if there is no other person's application for trademark similar to the main trademark, it is difficult to see that there is any element of consumer only on the ground that there is a concern about confusion between the source of the applicant and another similar company.

Therefore, there is an error of error in the interpretation of Article 9 (1) 4 and 11 of the former Trademark Act in the original adjudication. Therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

(3) Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)