(a) Summary of a request for partial invalidation of a trademark (affirmative);

(b) If the designated goods are different from each other, the registration price of a trademark similar to a well-known trademark (negative);

(a) Where a trademark is registered with respect to two or more designated goods under the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 2506 of Feb. 8, 1973), inasmuch as there is no express provision that it is possible to file a trial or lawsuit seeking partial invalidation or revocation of the trademark, but such provision does not immediately allow adjudication, etc. of invalidation or revocation of the trademark under the said Trademark Act, and no provision on the invalidation or revocation of such part is applicable, and a trademark is registered with respect to two or more designated goods, a trial for invalidation may be requested only for the designated goods which cause the invalidation and a trial for partial invalidation

B. Where a trademark is identical or similar to a well-known trademark, even if the designated goods are different from each other, the registration shall be refused pursuant to Article 5(1)8 of the former Trademark Act (Article 9(1)10 of the current Trademark Act). The registration of a trademark in violation of this provision shall be invalidated pursuant to Article 24 subparag. 1 of the former Trademark Act (Article 46 subparag. 1 of the current Trademark Act).

A. Article 24 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 2506 of Feb. 8, 1973). Article 5(1)8 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 2506 of Feb. 8, 1973), Article 24 subparag. 1 of the former Trademark Act, Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act, and Article 46 subparag. 1 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Hu94 delivered on September 9, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 80Hu63 delivered on September 9, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 83Hu43 delivered on September 11, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 84Hu51 delivered on December 11, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 82Hu14 delivered on April 23, 1985

Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Nam-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office No. 156 (Law No. 156 of Dec. 22, 1979) dated March 31, 1982

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal by the claimant are examined.

1. Although the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 2506, Feb. 8, 1973) explicitly provides that a trial or a lawsuit seeking the invalidation or cancellation of part of a trademark may be filed, the decision of the court below on the decision of the court below that the registration of some designated goods of the trademark can be invalidated under such opinion is just and contrary to the above opinion, so long as the trademark law permits a trial on the invalidation or cancellation of part of the trademark, there is no provision on the invalidation or cancellation. Thus, if a trademark has been registered on more than one designated goods, a trial on the invalidation may be requested only for the designated goods of which the ground for invalidation exists and a trial on the invalidation of part may be conducted (see Supreme Court Decision 79Hu94, Sept. 9, 1980).

2. However, in cases where a trademark is identical or similar to a well-known trademark which is widely recognized among consumers, even if the designated goods are different from each other, the use of the goods is recognized as being produced and sold by a company in light of the modern industrial structure in which many different kinds of goods are produced and sold by a well-known trademark right holder or a person having a special relation with the trademark, and thus, there is a concern for consumers to mislead or confuse the place of goods or business (Article 9 (1) 10 of the current Trademark Act) under Article 5 (1) 8 of the former Trademark Act (Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act of the current Trademark Act of 80Hu63 delivered on September 9, 1980; Article 83Hu43 delivered on September 11, 1984; Article 84Hu51 delivered on December 11, 1984; Article 14 (1) 2 of the former Trademark Act of April 23, 1985).

The court below's decision on the plaintiff's assertion that the cited trademark is widely recognized among consumers and the trademark is identical or similar to this, and thus, the registration should be invalidated because it falls under Article 5 (1) 8 of the former Trademark Act, is identical or similar to the cited trademark, its title, concept, appearance, and the quoted trademark is identical or similar to the cited trademark, and the cited trademark is widely known to the same industry and general consumers prior to the application of the trademark, while maintaining the decision of the first instance court's decision that the cited trademark is widely known in medical machinery, apparatus, and optical machinery, equipment, etc. before the application of the trademark, it is judged that the cited trademark and the designated goods of the cited trademark are different from those of the trademark at the present time after the cancellation of the trademark's registration, and even if they exist in the trade society, it is not likely for consumers to cause confusion about the source of goods or the designated goods at the trade society, which is rejected the rest of the designated goods for which the registration invalidation decision was made, which does not include the same or similar reasons as the designated goods.

3. Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Appeal Trial Office, which is the court below, to make a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)