Where the cited trademark is not a well-known or well-known trademark, requirements for Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act to be applied.

The purpose of Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act is to prevent misconception and confusion among ordinary consumers as to the origin, etc. of goods using a trademark which is already recognized as a trademark of a specific person, and to protect the trust thereof. Thus, even where the cited trademark is not widely known among ordinary consumers to the extent that it acquires its well-knownness, if there are special circumstances to believe that a trademark is used by a cited trademark right holder to the extent that it cannot be used for designated goods identical or similar to those of the cited trademark in light of the actual use of the cited trademark or the relation between the goods in which both trademarks are used and other general transactions, etc., even though it is not used for designated goods identical or similar to those of the goods using the cited trademark, it is likely to mislead and confuse ordinary consumers as to the origin of goods.

Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 96Hu412 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1111), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu34 delivered on August 29, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 289), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2296 delivered on October 14, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3467), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu1153 delivered on December 12, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 298)

World Real Industries Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Young-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

om Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Im Byung-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94 No. 13 dated March 31, 1997

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The purport of Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act is to prevent misconception and confusion among ordinary consumers as to the origin, etc. of goods using a trademark which has already been recognized as a trademark of a specific person, and to protect the trust thereof. Thus, even where the cited trademark is not widely known among ordinary consumers to the extent that it acquires its well-knownness, if there are special circumstances likely to be mistaken that a trademark is used by a cited trademark right holder to the extent that it cannot be used for the designated goods identical or similar to the cited trademark's goods, in light of the specific use status of the cited trademark or the relation between the goods using the cited trademark and other general transactions, etc., even though it is not used for the designated goods identical or similar to the goods using the cited trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Hu412, Mar. 14, 1997; 96Hu412, Dec. 13, 197). 197

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is hard to see that the registered trademark of this case (190. 8. 12. 6. 192. 24.) is widely known to consumers as well as its 10 kinds of goods, such as plastic products, and its wide-scale 20 billion won or more, and then, it is hard to see that the trademark of this case (1. 1. 1. 1. 91. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 4. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1.

In light of the records, such recognition and judgment of the court below are deemed legitimate as it is in accordance with the above legal principles, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in incomplete deliberation.

Furthermore, insofar as the registered trademark of this case is registered in violation of Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act and its registration should be invalidated pursuant to Article 71 (1) 1 of the same Act, the judgment of the court below as to whether the registered trademark of this case constitutes Article 7 (1) 4 of the Trademark Act shall not affect the result of the trial decision. All arguments are 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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)