The case holding that the registered trademark does not fall under Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act (Act No. 3326) on the grounds that the trade name and [personal trademark] are not well-known trademarks, and that the "Titain", which is the designated goods of the trademark, is not the same as the designated goods of the cited trademark, and the trademark does not fall under Article 9 (1)

The case holding that the registered trademark does not fall under Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act (Act No. 3326) on the grounds that the "Saektain," which is the designated goods of the cited trademark, is not a well-known trademark, and that the "Saktain," which is the designated goods of the cited trademark, is not the same as the designated goods of the cited trademark, synthetic fibres, and check materials.

Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act (Law No. 3326 of December 31, 1980)

Attorney Ahn Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Patent Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 116 Dated February 28, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against claimant.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that since it cannot be concluded that if the registered trademark of this case (personal trademark) is used for goods, such as content, which is the designated goods, it would cause general consumers to misunderstand or confuse the source of the goods, this case's registered trademark cannot be seen as falling under Article 8 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (Act No. 3326), and it is difficult for the claimant to recognize that the trade name of the claimant (hereinafter referred to as the "registered trademark") is a well-known trademark recognized remarkably to general consumers, the "Teri", which is the designated goods of the cited trademark, cannot be deemed as goods similar to the designated goods of the cited trademark, and thus, this case's registered trademark does not fall under Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act.

In comparison with the reasoning of the original trial decision, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the former Trademark Act or incomplete trial as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 24, the designated goods of the cited mark are dismissed goods, synthetic fiber goods, and check goods, etc., but the decision of the court below indicated the cited mark as the content of the cited mark, which is the designated goods of the cited mark, and there was no error in the decision of the court below that the cited mark is indicated as the designated goods of the cited mark in order to prepare for the soft contents, which are the designated goods of the trademark of this case, and that the designated goods of the cited mark of the trademark of this case are not the same as the designated goods of the cited mark of the trademark of this case.

All appeals are 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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)