The case holding that the registered trademark right holder's actual use of the trademark is similar to the registered trademark and constitutes a ground for cancellation of trademark registration.

Compared with the other party's registered trademark, it is difficult for the respondent to be a similar trademark. However, compared with the actually used trademark used for designated goods by removing and transforming the Korean application of the registered trademark, the respondent's actual use trademark may cause confusion and misunderstanding of the place and quality of goods in trade, notwithstanding the difference between name and concept, it is extremely similar in appearance, and thus, the respondent's use of the actually used trademark constitutes grounds for cancellation of registration under Article 45 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act.

Article 45 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 1, 200

Jinok

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 87Hun-Ba42 dated January 31, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the respondent.

After filing an application for and registering a trademark outside the scope of similarity with the well-known trademark, in fact, it is feared that the registered trademark may cause confusion or misunderstanding of the origin, quality, and quality of goods by using it on the designated goods after converting it into a trademark similar to the well-known trademark, the trademark constitutes grounds for cancellation of trademark registration under Article 45(1)2 of the Trademark Act. Thus, whether there is similarity with the registered trademark above and the trademark actually used, and whether there is similarity with the trademark actually used, with the trademark actually used, shall be determined based on whether the appearance, name, concept, etc. of each trademark are objective, overall, and separately observed to determine whether there is a concern of mistake or confusion in trade by observing it

According to the facts duly established by the original adjudication, the registered trademark of this case by the respondent is the English and Korean characters, and the respondent actually uses the registered trademark by converting it into the designated goods the Korean characters of the above registered trademark is removed. Meanwhile, the cited trademark which the claimant holds the right to use is registered as an English character trademark, or used as a trademark known to a foreign country and domestically. Thus, in light of the record, there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of fact finding the above decision of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

Based on the above facts, it is difficult to compare the registered trademark of this case with the well-known trademark of this case. However, if comparing the above actually used trademark with the well-known trademark, it is extremely similar in appearance to cause confusion and misunderstanding about the place and quality of goods in trade, regardless of the difference between name and concept.

Ultimately, since the above practical use of the trademark by the respondent constitutes a ground for cancellation of trademark registration under Article 45(1)2 of the Trademark Act, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of the principle of equity or misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged in the arguments.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)