(a) Whether an owner of a trademark right exercises his/her right to the same trademark by changing a color or font, etc. to the extent that it does not harm the identity of the registered trademark, or by changing a trademark symbol, etc. (affirmative);

(b) The case holding that the trademark right of the subsequent registered trademark shall have effect on the (a) mark since the mark "" is identical only to the registered trademark " "" and its color or word only in its name and concept after the mark (a);

C. Whether, where the other party’s trademark is a registered trademark, a request for confirmation that the other party’s registered trademark belongs to the scope of his/her right (negative)

A. If a trademark right holder changes color or fonts to the extent that it does not harm the identity of the registered trademark, it is the exercise of the right to the same trademark even if it is changed to add additional marks, etc. to the trademark.

(b) The case holding that the trademark right of the later registered trademark shall have effect on the (a) mark since (a) mark " " is identical only to the registered trademark " " " in color or letters," and (b) mark " only in terms of the name and concept;

C. The confirmation of the scope of the right to the trademark is confirmed based on the registered trademark that any unregistered trademark does not actively or passively belong to the scope of the right to the registered trademark. Therefore, if the other party's trademark is a registered trademark, it is unlawful to seek confirmation that the other party's trademark belongs to the scope of the right to the registered trademark even if it is identical or similar to the prior registered trademark of the claimant, even if it is identical or similar to the other party's prior registered trademark, even if it is not possible to claim the invalidation until the other party's registration becomes final and conclusive in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Trademark Act, but it would result in denying the other party's

(a)Article 50(c) of the Trademark Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 83Hu107 delivered on May 15, 1984, 84Hu5 delivered on May 28, 1985, 84Hu6 delivered on March 25, 1986 (Gong1986,705)

3. A trademark, which is registered as a trademark holder, shall be registered as a trademark holder, and the trademark holder shall be registered as a trademark holder and shall be registered as a trademark holder.

Attorney Seo Sang-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Hun-Ba285 dated March 25, 1992

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the appeal of this case seeking confirmation that (a) the mark falls under the scope of the right of the registered trademark "" (registration number No. 129837) after the respondent is a trademark holder, because (a) the mark cannot be deemed a method of exercising the trademark right of the registered trademark after the above date, since (a) the mark is different from the latter registered trademark, and (a) the mark falls under the scope of the right of the registered trademark " (registration number No. 129837)" (registration number No. 1298) after the respondent is a trademark holder, and thus, the appeal of this case is lawful.

(2) However, even if a trademark right holder changes its color or pattern to the extent that it does not harm the identity of the registered trademark and uses the registered trademark by making an additional entry of its symbol, etc., it shall be the exercise of the right to the same trademark. Since confirmation of the scope of right to the trademark is confirmed that any unregistered trademark belongs actively or passively to the scope of the right to the registered trademark, it shall be confirmed that if the other party's trademark is a registered trademark, even though it is identical or similar to the prior registered trademark of the claimant, it shall not be asserted that the other party's trademark belongs to the scope of the right to the registered trademark, even if it is identical or similar to that of the claimant's prior registered trademark, the other party's trademark cannot be asserted until the invalidation decision becomes final and conclusive in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Trademark Act, but a request for a trial to confirm that the other party's registered trademark belongs to the scope of the right to the registered trademark is inappropriate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 74Hu58, Jan. 27, 1984);

Even according to the reasons for the original decision, the mark (A) is identical only to the above registered trademark with its colors or letters, and if so, the mark (a) shall be deemed to have the effect of the trademark right of the subsequent registered trademark, and a claim for confirmation that the mark (a) which has the effect of the trademark right of the subsequent registered trademark belongs to the scope of the right of the prior registered trademark of this case is to deny the validity of the subsequent registered trademark without confirmation of the nullity decision of the subsequent registered trademark. Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the appeal of this case shall not be permitted in light of the above legal principles, and it is reasonable to point this out.

(3) Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)