The case holding that it is reasonable to view that a trademark is widely recognizable to consumers in light of the business period and size, sales amount, production quantity, trademark use period, type of advertising media, frequency of advertisement, etc. of a company which is a trademark registration right holder.

The case holding that it is reasonable to view that a trademark is widely recognizable to consumers in light of the business period and size, sales amount, production quantity, trademark use period, type of advertising media, frequency of advertisement, etc. of a company which is a trademark registration right holder.

Article 9(1) of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 7(1)10 of the Trademark Act

Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-cheon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90. 31 August 31, 1990, Paragraph 88. 84

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

The grounds of appeal by claimant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below rejected all of the claimant's claims that the trademark of this case was registered in violation of Article 9 (1) 10 and 11 of the former Trademark Act, and thus, it is reasonable to recognize that the trademark of this case, which is similar to the cited trademark, was sold for food, as the claimant's business period, advertising performance of the cited trademark, the number of agencies, and the production of edible milk, etc., recognized by the evidence adopted, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the cited trademark was famous at the time of the application of the trademark of this case. As such, it is reasonable to recognize that the claimant company's establishment purpose of the trademark of this case is the sale of edible milk, as in its trade name, and thus, it is not likely to cause misconception, confusion, or confusion, even if the trademark of this case, which is similar to the cited trademark, is used for cremation and fishing purposes.

2. However, considering the following facts: Gap's 7 to 11, Gap's 12 evidence 14-2, Gap's 15-1 to 10; Gap's 2; Eul's 3-1 to 23; and Eul's 5-2's 9-2's 9-7's 9-7's 9-7's 9-7's 9-7's 97's 9-7's 97's 9-7's 97's 197's 9-7's 97's 9-7's 97's 197's 9-7's 97's 9-7's 9's 197's 197's 9's 1971's 97's 197's 9's 197's 9's 97''s 197''''6'''''

Therefore, the court below's decision is erroneous in misunderstanding the value judgment of evidence or failing to properly recognize the facts. Therefore, the issue of this point is with merit.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)