A. The meaning of "a trademark likely to mislead the quality of goods" under Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act and the method of determining the trademark

(b) the case holding that if the trademark “gradation” is used on designated goods not containing originals or hairs, it is feared to mislead the quality of such goods;

A. The trademark that is likely to cause the misunderstanding of the quality of goods under Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) refers to the trademark in itself, which is likely to cause the misunderstanding of consumers as it has the nature different from that of the designated goods originally owned, and which is likely to cause the misunderstanding of consumers as to which the trademark is likely to cause the misunderstanding of quality should be determined according to the transactional norm.

(b) The case holding that since the registered trademark is composed of two parts in English and Korean, and is used in the meaning of "(new) so as to be "hyp" (hereinafter referred to as "hyp") and "hyp" as "hyp" in advance, it is not always referred to as "hyp" or "hyp" due to the use of "hyp" as "hyp" (hereinafter referred to as "hyp") and "hyp", but the designated goods of the registered trademark are not necessarily referred to as "hyp" or "hyp", but the raw materials of the hyp for filling bedclothes in the bedclothes industry, such as hyp, which are designated goods of the registered trademark, are used as original hair or hyp, and it is actually known that the original hyp (DUKDON) or hyp (GOSWN) or hyp (DOWN) are used in trade of the designated goods and that the goods are not known to be known or known to be containing the designated goods."

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Hu43 decided Apr. 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 819) 88Hu1007 decided Oct. 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 2419) decided Jun. 23, 1992 (Gong192, 2282)

Patent Attorney Jin-do et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Ahn Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92 No. 92 dated November 30, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A trademark likely to cause misconceptions as to the quality of goods under Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) refers to a trademark, the composition itself of which has the nature different from that of the designated goods originally possessed, and which is likely to cause misconceptions as to consumers. Whether there is concern about causing deterioration in quality of a trademark or not should be determined on a standard basis of trade norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Hu1007, Oct. 23, 1990; 92Hu124, Jun. 23, 1992).

In light of the records, the registered trademark of this case is composed of two parts, such as "DWN HOE", which is composed of two parts of English and Korean, and the English text "DOWN" is used with the meaning of "(news, hyp, hyp, and hyp" as "hyp" in advance, and "DOWN" is not necessarily referred to as original hair or hyp, but it is not always referred to as "DWN". However, if the designated goods of this case are similar to the designated goods of this case, the designated goods of this case, such as hyp, etc., of the registered trademark, the raw materials of the hyp for the filling of bedclothes are used with original hair or hyp, and it is not justified in the judgment of the court below that the designated goods of this case are not known to or known to the effect that original hyp (DUK DOWN) or hyp (GEN) are used with original hyp.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)