If the designated goods are different from each other, a registered trademark identical or similar to a wellknown trademark;

Where a trademark falls under the trademark identical or similar to the so-called well-known trademark which is remarkably recognized among consumers, even if the designated goods are different, the use of the trademark is recognized as being produced and sold by many different kinds of goods in light of the modern industrial structure in which the designated goods are produced and sold by one company or a person in a special relationship with him/her in light of the current industrial structure in which the goods are produced and sold, and thus, there is a concern for consumers to mislead or confuse the place of goods or business. Therefore, the registration of the trademark in violation of Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act shall be refused in accordance with Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act. The registration of the trademark shall be invalidated in accordance with

Articles 9(1)10 and 46 subparag. 1 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Hu27 Decided August 20, 1985

Patent Attorney Lee Ja-hun, Attorney Lee Jae-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Hanmo Industrial Co., Ltd., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 78 delivered on April 29, 1983

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

The grounds of final appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental grounds for final appeal).

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below rejected the claimant's claim on the ground that since the trademark of this case and the cited trademark are identical or similar to each of the elements of its appearance, concept, and name, the conclusion that the overall trademark is similar is apparent without objection, but if the designated goods are non-identical goods, they may coexist even with the same or similar trademark, even though they are similar or identical to the designated goods of this case.

However, in cases where a trademark falls under the trademark identical or similar to the so-called well-known trademark which is remarkably recognized among consumers, even if the designated goods are different from the designated goods, the use of the trademark is recognized as being sold by a company which produces and sells various different kinds of goods in light of the modern industrial structure in which the goods are produced and sold by a well-known trademark right holder or a person in a special relationship with such right holder in light of the current industrial structure, and thus, there is a concern that consumers may cause mistake and confusion as to the place of goods or business, so the registration shall be refused in accordance with Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, and the registration of the trademark in violation of this provision shall be invalidated in accordance with Article 46 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act.

In this case, the claimant asserts that the designated goods of the goods cited in the trademark of this case are identical to the designated goods of the goods cited in the trademark of this case in claiming the invalidation of the trademark of this case, but in that process, the quoted trademark is "any obvious recognition among consumers" and the consumers claim that "the mistake or confusion in the place of the goods produced" should be caused. Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on the above claim by clarifying whether the designated goods fall under different cases from each other under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, and further, rejected the claimant's claim on the ground that the designated goods of this case are the same as the designated goods of the goods cited in the trademark of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Trademark Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and there is a reasonable ground for

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office, which is the court below, for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)