A. Whether both trademarks should be similar in order to apply Article 7(1)10 of the Trademark Act

(c) The case holding that the cited trademark "Mickey Mouse" and "Minnie Mouse" are easily connected and are likely to cause mistake and confusion on the origin of goods, as they are recognized as having close relevance;

A. The purpose of Article 7(1)10 of the Trademark Act prohibiting the registration of a trademark likely to cause confusion with another person’s goods or business recognized remarkably by consumers is to prevent the occurrence of misconception and confusion with a well-known goods or business and source by ordinary consumers. Thus, even if the trademark itself is not similar to another person’s trademark used for the well-known or well-known goods, etc., even if the trademark itself itself is not similar to the trademark of another person’s trademark used for the well-known or well-known goods, etc., the trademark is not registered if it is likely to cause confusion and confusion with the origin of goods because the trademark is easily connected with the well-known mark or goods of another person or is deemed closely related to another person’s trademark or goods.

B. The cited trademarks are the cartoon film “Mickey Mouse”, which was aired through television for a long period of time in the past, and also are widely known in the world as the cancer “Mickey Mouse” and “Minnie Mouse”, the main figures of the cartoons, and are attached to cartoons in various countries in the world including the Republic of Korea, and are used and advertised by television broadcasting, etc. for a long time, and are widely recognized as a well-known trademark among Korean consumers.

(c) Goods recognized as easy and closely related to the cited trademark "Mickey Mouse" and "Minnie Mouse" in the applied trademark "Mickey and Minnie";

The case where there is a concern that the source may cause mistake or confusion.

Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

further, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant and two others

Patent Attorney Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 268 decided March 2, 1995

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined together (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that Article 7 (1) 10 and 11 of the Trademark Act is applied only when both trademarks are identical or similar to one another, compared to the similarity between the trademark "Mickey and Minne" and the cited trademark (1) "Micke Mouse" and the cited trademark (2) "Minnnnnie Mouse" of this case, and the two trademarks are different in their appearance because they are different in the form of letters, and they are perceived as "the name of male," while the cited trademarks are perceived as "the name of male," while the cited trademarks are perceived as "the name of the male," which is the main body of the cartoon film, so in this regard, the above trademarks are different from each other, and thus, they are called as "Minnnnnnne" and "Minnnnnne" of this case, and thus, the cited trademarks are not referred to as "Minnnnnnnnnnnne" of this case, so long as they are not referred to in their appearance and appearance.

However, Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a trademark likely to cause confusion with another person's goods or business recognized remarkably among consumers. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent confusion with the general consumers about the goods or business and source of well-known goods. Thus, even if the trademark itself is not similar to another person's trademark used for well-known or well-known goods, etc., even if it is not similar to the trademark of another person's trademark used for such well-known or well-known goods, etc., the trademark itself may not be registered if it is likely to cause confusion or confusion with the origin of goods because it is deemed that the trademark is easily connected with another person's well-known trademark or product or it is closely related to another person's trademark or product (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1370 delivered on March 23, 1993).

According to the records, the cited trademarks of the Republic of Korea are the cartoon film “Mickey Mouse”, which was aired through television for a long time prior to the past several hundred years, and are widely known in the world as the cartoons “Micke Mouse” and “Minnie Mouse,” which are the main actors of the cartoons, and are used and advertised by means of television broadcasting, etc. for a long time after being attached to cartoons in various world, including our countries, and is widely recognized as a well-known trademark among Korean consumers (see Supreme Court Decision 87Hu6, Feb. 28, 1989, supra). Since the cited trademarks are not simply connected with “Mickey & Mne” but also recognized as the cited trademarks, it is likely that the cited trademarks are closely related to the cited trademarks, it is likely to cause mistake and confusion in the source of goods. Therefore, the above trademarks are likely to cause confusion in the source of goods.

Nevertheless, the court below held that Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act applies only to the case where both trademarks are identical or similar to the above trademark, so long as the above trademark and the cited trademark are not similar to the above trademark, there is no ground for invalidation of registration under the above provision of the Trademark Act. Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under the above provision of the Trademark Act or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks, thereby affecting the conclusion of the decision. Therefore,

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the case shall be reversed and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)