whether the defendant's act of creating the above trademark and using it for the designated goods is infringed during the period from the time when the decision on invalidation of registration becomes final and conclusive on the grounds that there is a well-known trademark of the victims after the trademark registration of the victims

In a case where a trademark similar to the registered trademark and well-known among consumers prior to the filing of an application for the registration of the registered trademark, even if there are grounds for invalidation of the registration, such trademark is owned as it is the right of the registered trademark until the registration becomes null and void by a final and conclusive judgment, and where a trial decision that the registration should be invalidated because the registered trademark of the victims is similar to the trademark of the defendant, which is a well-known well-known well-known trademark widely known among consumers in Jeollabuk-do and Chungcheongnam-do, becomes final and conclusive, the act by the defendant by forming the above trademark and using it for the

Articles 9(1)9 and 36 subparag. 1, 46 subparag. 1, and 60 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 190)

[Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Yu Ho-seok

Jeonju District Court Decision 90No144 delivered on September 19, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the court below erred by finding the defendant not guilty of the infringement of the trademark right on the ground that the trademark owner's registered trademark, which was used by the defendant, is widely recognized among consumers by using a specific trademark on specific goods for a long time, should not be protected regardless of whether the trademark is registered or not, and the well-known trademark should not be widely recognized across the country, and it should also include cases where the widely recognized trademark is widely recognized in one region depending on the characteristics of the goods. Thus, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the infringement of the trademark right on the ground that the trademark owner's registered trademark is similar to the above widely known trademark between the consumers of the Republic of Korea and Chungcheongnam-do, and the trademark owner's registered trademark is not identical to the above widely known trademark and its invalidation became final and conclusive because the trial decision became final and conclusive.

However, even if the registered trademark in the judgment is widely known among consumers similar to the registered trademark prior to the filing of the application for the trademark registration, and there are grounds for invalidation of the registration, the right as the registered trademark is owned until the registration is declared null and void by a trial decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Hu139, Mar. 28, 1989; 89Hu469, Nov. 28, 1989). Of the facts charged in the instant case, in the period between the time when the trial decision invalidating the registration for reasons as stated in the judgment after the trademark registration becomes final and conclusive, if the defendant created a trademark similar to the registered trademark and used it for the designated goods, it shall not

The court below erred in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the effect of the registered trademark right, which was judged as above by focusing on the final judgment on the invalidation of the registered trademark of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument that points out this out

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)