Where there is concern for deceiving consumers under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act;

The purpose of Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, which provides that a trademark that is likely to deceive a consumer, is not to protect the existing trademark, but to prevent general consumers from being misled or confused about the quality, origin, etc. of goods using a trademark recognized as a trademark of a specific person, and to protect the trust thereof. Thus, in order to determine that there is a concern for consumer to deceive consumers, it should be known to the extent that it can be perceived as a product or trademark of a specific person if it is said to be a product or a trademark in domestic ordinary trade at least in Korea. Only if the trademark identical or similar to such quoted trademark is used for the same designated goods, it may cause general consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of goods pursuant to Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act.

Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4540, Dec. 7, 1990) (Law No. 4591, Dec. 7, 1990) (Gong1991, 749)

Attorney Song Electronic Co., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na315 Dated July 30, 1994

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

원심심결이유에 의하면, 원심은 본원상표는 “ELLE”와 같이 영문자로 된 상표이고 지정상품은 상품류구분 제18류 압력솥, 밥통 등 10개 상품인데, 인용상표인 프랑스 에디숑에 뷔블리까시용 에스 에이 회사의 “ELLE”상표 또는“엘 르”와 동일, 유사하고, 그 거시증거들을 종합하면 인용상표가 국내에서 주지, 저명한 것으로는 볼 수 없다 하더라도 적어도 국내의 일반수요자나 거래자로 하여금 특정인의 상표로 인식될 수 있는 정도로는 알려진 것이라 인정되므로 본원 상표가 그 지정상품을 달리하는 압력솥, 밥통 등에 사용된다 하더라도 일반수요자로 하여금 인용상표권자나 그와 특수한 관계가 있는 자에 의하여 생산 또는 판매되는 것으로 상품의 출처를 오인, 혼동하거나 수요자를 기만할 염려가 있어 상표법 제7조 제1항 제11호에 해당하여 등록될 수 없는 것이라고 판단하고 이와 같은 취지의 원사정을 유지하고 있다.

However, the purport of Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, which provides that a trademark that is likely to deceive consumers, shall not be registered for the purpose of protecting the existing trademark, is not to protect the existing trademark, but to prevent 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 to protect the trust thereof. Thus, in order to determine that there is a concern that consumers may deceive consumers, it should be known to the extent that it can be recognized as goods or trademarks of a specific person if the goods or trademarks are used in domestic general trade at least in the Republic of Korea. Only if the trademark identical or similar to the cited trademark is used for the same designated goods, it may be said that there is a concern that ordinary consumers may mislead or confuse the source of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Hu311, Jan. 11, 1991; 92Hu278, Jul. 28, 192). 207

Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trademark's designated goods under the cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's designated goods (the cited trademark's cited goods' clocks No. 35, bail No. 44, Category No. 27, Category No. 22, Category No. 25, Category No. 13, taxation, 41 Raz. 43, No. 12, 45, 43, cosmetic No. 12, 45, 23, 9, 52, 26, 34, etc., which are not similar to the designated goods of the original trademark's designated goods. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited trademark's cited goods's cited goods' 18, etc.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, and reversed the original decision, and remanded the case to the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)