If a trademark identical or similar to a well-known trademark is used for other designated goods, the registry (negative)

The purpose of Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, which is the reason for invalidation of registration under Article 46 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, is to prevent confusion about the source of the so-called well-known goods or business. Thus, if a trademark constitutes a trademark identical or similar to the so-called well-known trademark which is widely recognized among consumers, the designated goods cannot be registered without being the same as that of each other.

Articles 9 and 46 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Hu17 Decided April 22, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 82Hu14 Decided April 23, 1985

Attorney Cho Jong-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Patent Attorney Han-han et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 142 delivered on June 24, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The ground of appeal by the respondent's agent is examined.

According to the original decision, the court below held that this case's trademark is a character trademark registered on April 15, 1980 with "laundry, sampling, water rain, industrial rain, and chemical rain" as designated goods under Chapter 13 of the classification of goods, and is a character trademark registered on June 16, 1981 with the crossing "lebane" as "*" pattern and the above figure is perceived as one symbolizing the name of the claimant company in the goods such as food, etc. before the registration of this case, with the name of the claimant company as well as the name of the trademark "**" pattern and the above figure is recognized as representing the products of the claimant or claimant company. Thus, since this case's trademark is likely to cause confusion with the goods or business of the claimant, it is hard to find that the above registered trademark is invalid under Articles 9 (1) 10 and 46 subparagraph 1 of the Trademark Act, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles as stated in Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act.4.

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 on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)