The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. In order to constitute a trademark where the registered trademark is likely to mislead consumers as defined in Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, the registered trademark or goods of the pre-use trademark, which are compared to the designated goods, should be known to the extent that at least to be recognizable as a trademark or goods of a specific person if the trademark or goods are used for goods identical or similar to the pre-use trademark, or, in such a case, a trademark identical or similar to the pre-use trademark is used for goods identical or similar to the goods used, or any of the trademarks is identical or similar to the pre-use trademark, and in light of the specific circumstances of the pre-use trademark or the degree of economic relation between the goods using both trademarks, and other general transaction circumstances, if there are special circumstances to mislead consumers that the trademark is being used by the right holder of the pre-use trademark to the extent that it is not used for goods identical or similar to the goods using the pre-use trademark.

On the other hand, if the pre-use trademark acquires well-knownness by being widely known to most of the general public except in relation to the goods using the pre-use trademark, it can be recognized as being produced or sold by a well-known trademark right holder or a person in a special relationship with the trademark, depending on the purpose of use, sale and transaction of the goods, even though the goods are not only the goods widely known or similar to the trademark, and in any case, even if the trademark is used on goods different from those of the goods using the pre-use trademark, it may cause consumers to mislead and confuse the source of the goods.