The registration date of a trademark which causes the misunderstanding of the origin of the product;

For the purpose of Article 9 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, the term "trademarks which are likely to mislead or deceive consumers of the quality of the goods" includes only the misleading or misleading of the quality of the goods, and the latter part includes cases where there is a concern that consumers might be only aware of the origin of the goods by causing mistake of the quality of the goods regardless of the quality of the goods.

Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Patent Attorney Choi Ho-sik et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 87 No. 979 dated January 31, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A trademark which causes or threatens to cause a misunderstanding of the quality of the goods as provided in Article 9 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act shall include only the misunderstanding or deception of the quality of the goods, but the latter part shall also include cases where the misunderstanding of the quality of the goods is likely to cause a consumer by causing the misunderstanding of the origin of the goods regardless of the quality of the goods. Therefore, there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment of the court below. The arguments shall not be accepted on the premise that the above provision is applied to a case where there is a concern that the consumers might deceive the quality of the goods.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

Examining the reasoning of the decision of the court below in comparison with the records, the process of determining that the original trademark and the cited trademark were similar to their appearance, name, and concept, and that the quoted trademark was remarkably recognizable to domestic consumers is acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit. We cannot accept the argument.

3. The appeal is 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 judges.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)