(a) If a trademark identical or similar to a well-known trademark is used for a non-identical product (negative);

(b) The registration date of the trademark “Canon” (negative)

A. In a case where a trademark is widely recognized among consumers, if the trademark is well-known, the goods or similar goods widely known to the trademark, and even if the designated goods are different from each other, one company is recognized as being produced and sold by a well-known trademark right holder or a person specially related to the trademark in light of the modern industrial structure such as the production and sale of various different kinds of goods, and thus, it might cause consumers to mistake or confuse the place of goods, business, and registration should be refused in accordance with Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act.

B. The main trademark is extremely similar to "Canon", which is a cited trademark widely known among Korean consumers according to ombudsman, since it has been attached to a camera for a long time in various countries including Korea, and it is extremely similar to the overall appearance, name, and concept, even if it differs from the designated goods, it cannot be registered as it falls under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act even if it differs from the other designated goods.

Article 9(1)1 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Hu43 Decided September 11, 1984; 84Hu51 Decided December 11, 1984

Patent Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 55 of Section 55 of the Appeal Trial No. 1984 dated August 31, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal by the claimant are examined.

In a case where a trademark is well-known among consumers, even if not only the goods widely known or similar goods but also different designated goods are different from each other in different kinds of goods in light of the industrial structure such as the present time in which a company produces and sells various different kinds of goods in different industrial fields, and thus, it may cause consumers to be confused with the place of goods or business, so the registration shall be refused in accordance with Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Hu51, Dec. 11, 1984; 83Hu43, Sept. 11, 1984; 83Hu43, Sept. 11, 1984).

In this case, the court below determined that since the trademark in this case is a trademark in English and the cited trademark is a trademark in English and the cited trademark is a trademark in English and the cited trademark is a trademark in English, the two trademarks shall be identical with the completely English and its appearance is similar, and the "Canon" shall be referred to as the "Canon" according to the English version, with the exception of whether the trademark in Korean is "Canon", and the two trademarks shall be identical in their names, and the concept shall be identical in the name, and it shall be extremely similar in the whole and objective examination, and the cited trademark shall be used for a long time after being affixed to the Republic of Korea and it is known that it is a trademark known to Korean consumers in accordance with the ombudsman, and even if the designated goods are different, the two trademarks shall be deemed to be identical to the designated goods, and it shall be determined that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trademark registration, and it shall be judged that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trademark registration in accordance with Article 10 (10) of the Trademark Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)