[1] The case holding that the trademark "GERMA4's Hanbok" and the cited trademark " Hanbok" are similar since they can be referred to as " Hanbin"

[2] Whether a registered trademark holds a right until a final and conclusive judgment on invalidation becomes final and conclusive (affirmative)

[1] The case holding that since all trademarks registered before the main trademark "GERMA-Bok" and the cited trademarks registered after the earlier application are composed of letters, letters, or figures and letters, they are not combined with each other to the extent that natural and non-natural if they are observed separately, both trademarks can be separately and observed, and since they do not form a new specific concept due to the combination, they can not be formed to the extent natural and non-natural, both trademarks can be separated and observed, and in the situation of a trade society where one of the essential parts is separately observed or simplified for a simple and swift transaction, both trademarks can be abbreviationd and conceptualized only with the "herb" part, since both trademarks are identical in name and concept, and if they are used together with the same or similar trademarks such as the designated goods so that they are similar to those of the general consumers, they may cause misconception and confusion about the source of goods.

[2] If a trademark is registered, the right to the registered trademark shall be held until it is declared null and void by a trial.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 50 and 71 (3) of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1824 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2124), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1395 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 553), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1685 delivered on April 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1587), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1890 delivered on June 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2191) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Do702 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3030)

Applicant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94Na2466 dated January 22, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") is composed of letters, letters, or diagrams, and the cited trademark (trademark registration number omitted; hereinafter referred to as the "personally used trademark") registered after adding them to the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original source trademark") is all composed of the combination trademark composed of characters, letters, or diagrams, and the combination does not form a new concept as a result of the combination to the extent that it is natural if observed separately, the two trademarks can be separately observed, and both trademarks can be separated and conceptualized only by one of the essential parts for a simple and swift transaction. In such a case, if both trademarks are identical in terms of name and concept, and if they are likely to cause confusion among general consumers as to the source or source of goods, it is similar.

In the above purport, although the court below's decision that rejected the registration of the original trademark under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act was somewhat insufficient, the decision of the court below was just, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademark as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

All of the arguments in the grounds of appeal premised on the prohibition of separate observation of the original trademark or the cited trademark are not acceptable, and the trademark shall be entitled to the trademark as a registered trademark until it is declared invalid and finalized by a trial (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do702 delivered on July 28, 1995). Thus, even if there is any illegality in the grounds of appeal on the cited trademark as a ground of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do702 delivered on July 28, 1995), it is not possible to deny the validity of the cited trademark for this reason, unless the invalidation is declared by a trial and its invalidation is confirmed by a trial (it is not possible to revoke

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)