[G 1] Whether or not the trademark crossinged from the upper top of the figure [K 2], and on the lower bottom [g 3], is similar to the trademark of a well-known trademark (RITI).

The registered trademark of this case, the shape of which is a composite trademark with the picture 200 square meters, panty panty sports, etc. as designated goods under the category of goods 45 of this category, shall be identical or similar to that of the designated goods under Article 9 (1) 9 of the former Trademark Act, and is null and void in accordance with Article 46 (1) 1 of the same Act, as it falls under the category of 200 square meters, shower, spants, panty sportss, panty sportss, and panty sportss, etc., which are crossed in the upper part of [g 1] [g g g 2] and the bottom thereof (g g h 3].

Articles 9(1)1 and 46 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 3326 of Dec. 31, 1980)

Patent Attorney Kang-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Patent Attorney Kim Yoon-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 165 decided on March 20, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the registered trademark of this case is classified as No. 45 and show shower, shower, panty mar, etc. as designated goods, and registered on July 9, 1980, the court below found that the above registered trademark of this case was identical to that of the above No. 45 and the No. 2 of this case's trademark "No. 1 of this case's trademark "No. 1 of this case's trademark "No. 2 of this case's trademark "No. 9 of this case's trademark "No. 9 of this case's trademark "No. 2 of this case's trademark ", No. 9 of this case's trademark " No. 1 of this case's trademark ", No. 9 of this case's trademark ", No. 9 of this case's trademark " and No. 2 of this case's trademark ", No. 9 of this case's trademark of this case's No. 9 of this case's Ga No. 97 of this case's trademark "

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)