[1] Criteria for determining "low trade name" under Article 9 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act

[2] The case holding that "a pair of uses", an abbreviationd name of a pair of use groups, is well-known

[3] Whether a trademark used by a famous company constitutes "a well-known trademark" under Article 9 (1) 10 of the former Trademark Act (affirmative with qualification)

[1] According to Article 9 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990), a trademark containing a well-known person’s name, name or trade name, portrait, signature, seal, name, pen name, pen name, or its abbreviation, shall not be registered. The issue of whether a well-known trade name is widely known under the above provision shall be determined by the period, method, mode, volume, quantity, scope of transaction, etc. of the trade name, and whether it is objectively widely known under the ordinary social norms.

[2] The case holding that if the name of "balm" is used in most of the trade names of the company belonging to a two-use group, and the balmmark of a group including the name "balm" has been used in the promotional activities of each company, and such group has already been used in the promotional activities of the company, it is reasonable to view "balm" as well as the trade name of the company belonging to the group or its group, in light of our social norms, is well-known.

[3] The issue of whether to grant the so-called well-known trademark under Article 9 (1) 10 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) is the standard for the use and supply of the trademark, the period, method, mode, scope of transaction, etc. of the trademark, and whether it is objectively widely known under the transaction circumstances or social norms or social norms. On the other hand, the trademark used by a well-known company is all well-known and well-known. However, if the trade name itself is well-known, it shall be deemed that the trade name itself can lead to the well-known business. In addition, the trade name using the trade name shall be deemed to be easy to acquire well-known and well-known.

[1] Article 9(1)6 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) (Article 7(1)6 of the current Trademark Act) / [2] Article 9(1)6 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) (Article 7(1)6 of the current Trademark Act) / [3] Article 9(1)10 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) (Article 7(1)10 of the current Trademark Act)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu2053 delivered on September 24, 1996 (1) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 83Hu34 delivered on January 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 372), Supreme Court Decision 85Hu92 delivered on January 21, 1986 (Gong1986, 380) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 83Hu77 delivered on October 14, 1986 (Gong1986, 3036), Supreme Court Decision 89Hu2281 delivered on September 28, 190 (Gong190, 2167), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu268 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1984, 19831)

Both parties to the lawsuit (Patent Attorney Kim Yoon-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Appellant (Patent Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Da325 dated November 28, 1995

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office by destroying the original decision of the court below.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Fact-finding and judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although the trademark of this case (registration No. 1 omitted) was applied for both the end of No. 45 of the goods classification as designated goods on March 16, 1990, and registered on June 25, 1991, the court below determined that the trademark of this case (registration No. 1 omitted) was identical to the trademark of this case, which was registered on June 25, 1991, was not clearly distinguished from the cited trademark and the quoted trademark; hereinafter, the trademark is classified as "personal trade name if it is an abbreviation"; hereinafter, the trademark of this case was applied for trademark registration No. 9 and the trademark of this case was not identical to the trademark of this case, since it was applied for trademark No. 1 of this case for trademark registration No. 7 of this case to which the claimant belongs, and it was hard to recognize that the trademark of this case was identical to the trademark of this case No. 97 of this case and the trademark of this case, which was applied for trademark registration No. 1 of this case to two-years manufacturing and re-use company. 97 of this case.

2. Judgment of party members

A. As to the first ground for appeal

According to Article 9(1)6 of the former Trademark Act, a trademark containing a well-known person’s name, name or trade name, portrait, signature, seal, name, pen name, pen name, pen name, or its abbreviation, shall not be registered. Whether a trademark is a well-known trade name under the above provision shall be determined according to the period, method, pattern, quantity of use, scope of transaction, etc. of the trade name, and whether the trade name objectively is objectively widely known under the social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 83Hu34, Jan. 24, 1984).

According to Gap evidence No. 5 (F.I.D.) and evidence No. 6 and No. 7 (W. Each decision) adopted by the court below, two groups were established for the first time in around 1939 and development of T.I.D., one of the main companies, around 1962. Geumsung Shipping Co., Ltd., which belongs to the above group, was P.I.D. for the second time in 1972, P. P.M. Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., which belongs to the claimant's overall business, was changed to two different trademarks of this case (the two companies were changed to one another for the second time in December 1, 1975; the second time in 1976, the second time in 1977, the second time in 198, the second time in 197, the second time in 197, the second time in 19, the second time in 197, the second time in 197, the second time in 1.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 9 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act because the cited trade name is not well-known. Thus, the court below's decision of the court below contains an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the above provision or misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the result of the trial decision, which

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

The issue of whether the so-called well-known trademark under Article 9 (1) 10 of the former Trademark Act is the criteria for the use and supply of the trademark, the period and method of business activities, the pattern and the scope of trade, and whether it is objectively widely known under the ordinary social norms, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Hu2281, Sept. 28, 1990; 88Hu219, Jun. 27, 1989; 83Hu77, Oct. 14, 1986; 83Hu77, Oct. 14, 1986; 200; however, if the trade name itself is well-known, it shall be deemed that the trade name itself can be used for the well-known business, and it shall be deemed that it is easy to acquire the well-known and well-known trade name.

The court below held that the trademark of this case does not fall under Article 9 (1) 10 of the former Trademark Act, without clearly distinguishing the cited and cited trademarks as above. However, if the trademark of this case appears to be well-known, as long as the cited trade name is seen to be well-known, if the cited trade name of this case can be connected with the cited trade name, the trademark of this case can be seen as a trademark likely to cause confusion with the business of the person holding the above cited trade name, even though the cited trade name is well-known. Further, although the cited trade name of the court below is not clearly specified, the cited trade name of this case is not so specified, the court below should have determined that it is well-known in light of the facts duly established by the court below since it applied for the cited trademark of this case from 1981 to 200, the above cited trade name of this case was already used for a considerable period of time after the court below's determination that it is well-known and well-known trade name of this case.

In addition, in light of the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the respondent or his father has actually used the registered trademark of this case or the same trademark as the designated goods, or that the registered trademark of this case was known to some extent in the field of the end, which is the designated goods, and it cannot be recognized or ratified solely on the application and registration of the above trademark, and if the registered trademark of this case is connected with a well-known trademark or trade name, it cannot be concluded that it can be registered immediately solely on the ground that the registered trademark of this case is known to some extent in the field of the designated goods.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 9 (1) 10 of the former Trademark Act because the cited trade name or quoted trademark is not well-known without specifying the cited trademark specifically, while the registered trademark of this case was known to some extent in the designated goods field. Thus, the court below's decision in the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above provision of the Act and by failing to admit facts or to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the rules of evidence, and it is obvious that such illegality has an effect on the result of the trial decision, and therefore, there is

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)