(a) The case holding that the well-knownness of a trademark subject to Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act is recognized as required by Article 9 (1) 11 of the same Act;

A. The purport of Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990) provides that a trademark that is likely to deceive consumers shall not be registered, not to protect the existing trademark, but to prevent misconceptions or confusions among general consumers about the quality, origin, etc. of goods using a trademark already recognized as a trademark of a specific person in order to protect the trust thereof. The purpose of the provision is not to protect the trademark, and if it is known to the extent that it can be perceived as a specific person's goods or a trademark if the goods or a trademark is goods or a trademark in domestic ordinary transactions, it is not to protect the existing trademark.

B. The cited trademark is a title of a fashion magazine published by Japan on July 21, 1971, which was published on the date of permission from the authorities of Korea on August 25, 1975, and has been imported annually in 1993 by the Korea Publication Trade Corporation, and has reached 18,000 copies of permission each time in 193. At the same time, it is hard to see that a publication that has been imported in 10,000 copies or more each time in addition to the magazines of the cited trademark is a magazine global well-known. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to see that there is sufficient ground to see that there is sufficient ground to see that there is sufficient ground to see that it is a general consumers or consumers to see that there is sufficient reason to see that there is sufficient reason to see that there is sufficient reason to see that there is a lack of domestic or foreign permit to import prior to July 4, 1989, the time of the application for the trademark of this case.

Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 7(1))

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Patent Attorney Kim Jong-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 decided May 1, 200

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 328 dated January 28, 1995

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

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that: (a) the registered trademark of this case was applied on February 28, 198; (b) the composition of the registered trademark was identical to the registered trademark on July 4, 1989; and (c) the designated goods, such as books and magazines, are classified as category 52; and (d) Gap evidence submitted to prove the well-knownness and reputation of the cited trademark; (b) although the magazines of the cited trademark were imported through the East Publication Trade Co., Ltd. every year, it is difficult to know the time and quantity; (c) the number of copies permitted in 193 was 18,00 copies each time; (d) the magazines of the cited trademark were imported every year from 1975, or the number of copies imported was 18,000 copies each month; and (d) it is difficult to readily conclude that the registered trademark of this case was 190,000 parts or more widely known to the domestic consumers prior to the amendment of the trademark of this case No. 19.

However, the purport of Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act stipulating that a trademark that is likely to deceive consumers cannot be registered is not for the protection of the existing trademark, but for the purpose of preventing general consumers from misunderstanding or confusion about the quality, origin, etc. of goods using a trademark already recognized as a trademark of a specific person, and protecting trust in this regard, so the goods or the trademark is not necessarily known and recognizable, but at least if it is known to consumers or traders at least to the extent that it can be perceived as a specific person's goods or a trademark if it is said to be a specific person's goods or a trademark in domestic general transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Hu649, Dec. 7, 1990; 92Hu674, Feb. 9, 1993; 93Hu1131, May 13, 1994).

However, in light of the records, the cited trademark is the title of the fashion magazine published by the claimant company on July 21, 1971 in Japan, which was published on August 25, 1975 by the Dongjin Publication Trade Co., Ltd. after obtaining permission for import from the authorities on August 25, 1993, and its number of copies was 18,00 each time in 193. In addition to the magazines of the cited trademark at the same time, it is hard to see that the cited trademark "NEEK", "IE", and REDDDDG 98, etc., it is hard to see that the cited trademark "Nos. 10,00 copies of the cited trademark" or "Nos. 10,00 copies of the cited trademark are domestically well-known magazines at the time of the same time, and it is hard to see that the cited trademark "Nos. 4,000 copies of the cited trademark at the time of the sale of the cited trademark."

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the registered trademark of this case, similar to the cited trademark, is likely to cause ordinary consumers or traders to confuse the source of goods in the case of using multiple magazines, books, etc. of category 52, which are similar to the identical or similar designated goods. However, the court below rejected the claimant's assertion that the registered trademark of this case is registered in violation of Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the claimant alone is insufficient to recognize that the registered trademark of this case was known to a certain extent to the domestic consumers, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above trademark provision, further in the determination of evidence, which misleads the facts against the rules of evidence, and fails to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)