[1] The criteria for determining whether a trademark constitutes "a trademark that is likely to mislead a consumer" under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act and the criteria for determining whether the trademark is "a trademark that is likely to mislead a consumer (=the time when the trademark registration is decided

[2] The case holding that since a registrant of a trademark, such as "HBLW" and "HIBLW," which is composed of the trademark "HIBLW", is qualified as an agent of the above trademark right holder, it is recognized that the trademark "HIBLW" is a trademark holder who produces and supplies the EBL pumps with the trademark attached, since the trademark is recognized as a trademark holder's agent of the above trademark right holder

[1] For the purpose of "a trademark which is likely to mislead or mislead a consumer" under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, any trademark or its goods are not necessarily well-known, but at least in general transactions in the Republic of Korea, it must be known to the extent that it can be perceived as a trademark or goods of a specific person if it is a trademark or goods. In such a case, if a trademark identical or similar to the trademark is used for designated goods identical or similar to the goods using it, or if there are special circumstances that may be mistaken as being used by the trademark right holder to the extent that it is not possible to mislead or confuse the source of the goods, it shall be deemed that the general consumer might cause misconception or confusion of the source, and on the other hand, whether it is a trademark likely to mislead a consumer shall be determined at the time of registration of the trademark.

[2] The case holding that since a registrant of a trademark, such as "HBLW" and "HIBLW," which is composed of the trademark "HIBLW" and "HIBLW, is qualified as an agent of the above trademark right holder, it is recognized that the trademark "HIBLW" is the trademark right holder who produces and supplies the EBL pumps with the trademark attached

[1] Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Hu2038 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2143), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu412 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1111), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3975, 3982 delivered on February 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 666), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2870 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 209Ha, 2094), Supreme Court Decision 9Hu2594 delivered on February 8, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 591), Supreme Court Decision 2009Hu280841 delivered on May 30, 205 (Gong2009Ha2864, Feb. 26, 2005)

Plaintiff

Gabakia Shakisa et al., and one other (Law Firm Doo, Attorneys Doo-su et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 200Heo595, 6004 decided May 18, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

For the purpose of "a trademark which is likely to mislead or mislead a consumer" under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, any trademark or its goods are not necessarily well-known, but at least in general transactions in the Republic of Korea, it should be known to the extent that it can be perceived as a trademark or goods of a specific person if it is a trademark or goods. In such a case, if there are special circumstances to believe that a trademark identical or similar to the trademark is used on the designated goods identical or similar to the goods using it, or that it is used by the trademark right holder to the extent that it is not sufficient, it may cause the general consumer to mislead or confuse the source. On the other hand, whether it is a trademark likely to mislead a consumer shall be determined at the time of the registration of the trademark (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Hu412, Mar. 14, 1997; 96Hu412, Aug. 21, 2001; 201Hu584, Aug. 21, 2001).

In the same purport, the court below recognized that the defendants' domestic sales performance and advertisement contents of the products with which the defendants' trademark "HBLW" had been attached, and that the defendants' continued trade relation and advertisement contents between the plaintiff and the defendant Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd., a subsidiary company of the above defendant's Republic of Korea, as stated in its reasoning. Since the plaintiff's domestic sales and advertisement activities of "HIBLW" are limited to the plaintiff's representative, it is not the plaintiff's trademark "HBLW", but the plaintiff's domestic sales and advertisement activities of "HBLW" are recognized as being identical to the plaintiff's designated goods of this case's "this case's trademark's unfair use or confusion between the plaintiff's trademark's plaintiff's trademark's plaintiff's 1 and its designated goods of this case's "this case's trademark's unfair use or confusion between the plaintiff's trademark's plaintiff's 1 and its designated goods of this case's "IBLW" is not known to the defendants' general consumers of this case's designated goods of this case's trademark.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)