Scope of paragraphs 1(9) and 10 of this Article

Article 9 (1) 9 of the Trademark Act is to prohibit the registration of a trademark in conflict with the so-called stateless trademark or well-known trademark, and is premised on the existing trademark to be protected. However, subparagraph 10 of the Trademark Act aims to prevent confusions with the release of well-known or well-known goods or business. Thus, subparagraph 9 of the Trademark Act is not bound by the premise of the goods of the same kind under subparagraph 10, and in the case of subparagraph 10 of the Trademark Act, it is reasonable to view that subparagraph 9 of the Trademark Act is not premised on the pre-known existing trademark.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

Cubro-Fa Co., Ltd. Patent Attorney Ha Sang-gu

Patent Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 88, Dec. 28, 1979

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the trademark, which belongs to the right of the claimant or claimant, in this case, falls under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act between the trademark used before the claimant and the trademark used by him and the trademark which belongs to the above subparagraph 10 of Article 9 (1) of the Trademark Act, is related to the case where a trademark, such as the wellknown trademark, is designated and registered as a product or business of a different kind under the premise of the wellknown trademark which is recognized remarkably among consumers, and that the trademark designated by the claimant or claimant, as in this case, falls under Article 9 (1) 9 of

However, although Item 9 of the above Article aims to prohibit the registration of a trademark in conflict with the so-called well-known trademark or well-known trademark, it is clear in accordance with the provisions of each subparagraph of the above Article that the purpose of Item 10 is to prevent confusions as to the release of well-known or well-known goods or business, and it is reasonable to view that Item 9 does not necessarily mean that Item 10 is based on the goods of the same kind, and in the case of subparagraph 10, it is not premised on the well-known existing trademark.

Therefore, the grounds stipulated in subparagraphs 9 and 10 can concurrently exist at the same time. Therefore, the parties who dispute the invalidation of registration should not be able to concurrently assert the reasons regardless of the same kind of product.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the claimant's claim on the ground that it cannot be applied to the case where the plaintiff's claim is based on the same kind of goods, as the cause of the plaintiff's claim in this case, which is the cause of the plaintiff's claim in this case. Thus, there is no error of law which misleads the interpretation of the same Article, and therefore, it is reasonable to find it erroneous.

Accordingly, the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, the original trial decision, and the case shall be remanded to the Appeal Trial Office, the original trial decision, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)