[Registered Trademark] The case holding that a trademark registration is not null and void in relation to the trademark [Trademarks (1)] [Trademarks (2)]

[Registered] The case holding that although the trademark is widely known among ordinary customers or consumers at the time of application for the trademark registration, it is difficult to conclude that the designated goods fall under the well-known trademark (1) [2] and [3] and [4] mutually similar trademarks, etc., the designated goods of this trademark are "packk Chewing Chewing" belonging to Class 3 (A and Class 4) of the classification of goods, and the designated goods of the cited trademark are not "Gu lecture lux" belonging to Class 10 (chemicals and medicines) of the classification of goods, and it is difficult to see that the cited trademark falls under the well-known trademark widely known among ordinary customers or consumers at the time of application for the trademark registration of this case, but it is difficult to conclude that the designated goods fall under the well-known trademark clearly recognizable among consumers to the extent that the designated goods fall under the well-known trademark that are registered on different kinds of goods, and, in this case, the phrase "gai" in the composition of this trademark can be seen as indicating the source of the designated goods as its trade name and thus it is not likely to be sold to consumers or consumers.

Articles 9(1)9, 10, and 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of January 13, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1403 delivered on February 25, 1992

Considering the fact that the Patent Attorney Park Jong-hoon et al.

Attorney Yoon Il-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and two others

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 477 dated July 31, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the original decision, the court below determined that the trademark is identical in that it is a character trademark [1] and its prior registered trademark [2] [3] of the personal trademark [3] of the personal trademark [4] of the case where the trademark and the quoted trademark are similar to each other, but the designated goods of the trademark are "surin Chewing Chewing" belonging to Class 3 (and kind) of the product classification, and the designated goods of the quoted trademark are identical in that they are used for removing smells of the product classification 10 (chemical and medicine). Since the quality or shape of the two goods are different and their transaction circumstances such as the producer's place are different, it is difficult to see that the trademark is identical or similar to those of the ordinary consumers at the time of sale, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the trademark falls under the category 9 of the trademark which is widely known to the general consumers as being aware of the fact that the trademark falls under the category 9 of the previous trademark or its cited trademark's abbreviations through various publications or television advertisements."

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation or by misunderstanding the legal principles of the former Trademark Act as pointed out. The argument is without merit.

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.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)