Where designated goods are different from each other, the registration price of a trademark similar to a well-known trademark (negative)

If a trademark falls under the so-called trademark identical or similar to a well-known trademark which is remarkably recognized among consumers, even though the designated goods are different from each other, the use of the trademark is recognized as being produced and sold by a person with a well-known trademark right or a person specially related to such person in light of the modern industrial structure in which many different kinds of goods are produced and sold throughout the various different industrial fields, and thus, there is a concern for consumers to confuse consumers with the place of goods or business. Therefore, registration shall be refused in accordance with Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act, Article 46 of the Trade Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Hu63 delivered on September 9, 1980, 83Hu43 delivered on September 11, 1984, and 84Hu51 delivered on December 11, 1984

샤넬 소송대리인 변리사 목돈상

Appellant 1 et al. and one other

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office No. 171 dated February 27, 1982

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

The ground of appeal by the claimant is examined.

Where a trademark falls under the trademark identical or similar to the so-called well-known trademark which is remarkably recognized among consumers, even though the designated goods are different from each other, the use of the trademark is recognized as being produced and sold by a company in light of the modern industrial structure in which many different kinds of goods are produced and sold by a well-known trademark right holder or a person with a special relationship with such right, and thus, there is a concern that consumers may cause mistake or confusion as to the place of goods, business, registration shall be refused in accordance with Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Hu51, Dec. 11, 1984; 83Hu43, Sept. 11, 1984; 80Hu63, Sept. 9, 1980). Therefore, the registration of a trademark in violation of Article 46(1)1 of the Trademark Act shall be invalidated.

As to the claimant's assertion that the cited trademark is widely recognized among consumers and the trademark is identical or similar to this, it constitutes grounds for non-registration under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, the original trial decision does not have any material to recognize that the quoted trademark is a well-known trademark even though it cannot be denied that it is a well-known trademark, which is the designated goods of the trademark of this case, in the trade society of Korea, even though it is not a well-known trademark. Thus, the trademark and the quoted trademark are different from each of the designated goods of the trademark of this case, and they cannot be seen as a well-known trademark even if they are identical or similar to the cited trademark, without determining whether they are identical or similar to the cited trademark, and they are dismissed without examining whether they are identical or similar to the cited trademark. However, this is not sufficient to exhaust all deliberations by misapprehending that the grounds for non-registration under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act are limited to cases where the designated goods are identical or similar to the trademark of this case. Therefore, the appeal to this point has merit.

Therefore, the original trial decision shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the appeal trial office which is the original trial decision, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju