In a case of a request for invalidation trial against a trademark similar to a trademark on behalf of an agent for an application for trademark registration, whether the representation of the other party conflicts with Article 7 of the Patent Attorney Act.

Article 7 of the Patent Attorney Act that "no patent attorney shall perform his/her duties in relation to a case he/she handles as a representative of the other party" means that a patent attorney shall perform his/her duties on behalf of one of the former parties and shall not perform his/her duties in a position opposite to the interests of the former parties on behalf of the other party. Thus, the act of representing the other party in the invalidation trial of the trademark of this case similar to the cited trademark that was represented by a claimant as an agent for

Article 7 of the Patent Attorney Act

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Patent Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 34 delivered on June 30, 1981 (No. 3 of 1981) Decided 1978

Supreme Court Decision 80Hu101 Delivered on April 14, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The ground of appeal by the claimant is examined.

With respect to Section 1:

The issue is that there is an error of law such as similarity of trademarks, misunderstanding of legal principles as to similarity of well-known trademarks, incomplete hearing, or omission of judgment, in the original trial decision, unless it cannot be seen as identical or similar to external appearance, concept, and title, and thus there is no possibility of confusion in trade.

However, at the time of the original adjudication that criticizes the place of issue, it is based on the legal judgment expressed as the reason for reversal while destroying and sending the previous appellate trial decision, and the court below, which is subject to detention, was a justifiable measure. Since it is bound by the legal judgment made as the reason for reversal before the party members as well, it cannot take different opinions in the same case, it is not acceptable to accept the argument that the above legal opinion was erroneous and that there was an error such as the theory of the original adjudication, which is the reason for reversal.

With respect to Section 2:

Article 7 of the Patent Attorney Act provides that "no patent attorney shall perform his/her duties in relation to a case he/she handled as a representative of another party" shall be interpreted to mean that a patent attorney shall not perform his/her duties in a manner contrary to the interests of the former party on behalf of one of the parties to the same case, and thereafter, he/she shall not perform his/her duties in a manner contrary to the interests of the former party on behalf of another party. However, such as a novel theory, even if a patent attorney who is an agent of the claimant becomes the former representative of the claimant and acted as an agent in the case of the cited trademark application and registration of the cited trademark against the Korean Intellectual Property Office, the claimant's act of acting as the representative of the respondent cannot be deemed to conflict with Article 7 of the Patent Attorney Act, on the ground that the above cited trademark is similar to the above cited trademark and the trademark of the respondent. Accordingly, the original decision is just and there is no ground for appeal as it is no misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory.

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

Justices O Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)