The case holding that the "Korea L/Cibaco Co., Ltd." is not likely to disrupt the public order or deceive consumers by the "Korea L/Cibaco Co., Ltd." as a combined trademark of the Republic of Korea L/Cibaco's Republic of Korea L/Cibaco's Republic of Korea L/Cibaco's Republic of Korea L/Cibaco's Republic of Korea L/Cibaco's Republic of Korea L/Cibaco's Republic of Korea

Korea's "Korea" in the Shovina Schedule "Korea (State) REA RESARCH") that "Korea has translated "Korea" into English," can be easily known that "Korea is not identical to the trademark of the applicant, but the Shovina Schedule cannot be deemed as a Shovina that disturbs the public order, without the other party's trademark or trade name to prepare against the applicant, and only this is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the source of the Shovina business.

Articles 9(1)4 and 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

Attorney Ahn Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Na1344 dated January 31, 1991

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the applicant's application is different from the applicant's name "Korea LORE REASECHCO." "Korea LTD", which is the applicant's name, and thus, if the applicant's application is used for the publication business that is its designated LOBS business, market development business, etc., it is likely that ordinary consumers may cause confusion about the source of the applicant's LOBS as the other person's LOB business, not the applicant's non-applicant, and thus, the court below held that the above application's LOBS is not registered under Article 9 (1) 4 and 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 190).

2. In light of the record, it can be easily known that this schedule is not an applicant’s basic trademark, but an applicant’s application for the trademark of the Republic of Korea Liber (HNK RESARCH) as a single trademark. In light of the general English level among the Korean nationals, the term “Korea” in this schedule can easily be seen that it refers to the English translation of “Korea” in the English language. Thus, even if this is not deemed the same as the applicant’s trademark, it cannot be said that it would disturb the public order, and it would not be said that there is a concern for consumers to mislead the consumers of the source of the business without any other counter-party’s trademark or trade name compared to the applicant.

3. Therefore, the court below erred by erroneous interpretation of Article 9 (1) 4 and 11 of the former Trademark Act, and the grounds for appeal are limited to this scope.

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

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)