A. Requirements under Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act

(b) Cases falling under both Articles 9(1)10 and 11 of the former Trademark Act;

(c) Where a trademark identical or similar to a trademark which is neither well nor well-known nor well-known is used for different designated goods, the case reversing the original trial decision that falls under Article 9(1)10 and 11 of the former Trademark Act;

A. In order to determine that there is a concern for deceiving consumers as prescribed by Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 190), the cited trademark or its designated goods should not be always known and indicated, but at least it should be known to consumers or traders as a trademark or goods of a specific person if they are used in domestic general transactions. In such a case, only if a trademark identical with or similar to the quoted trademark is used for the same designated goods, it may cause confusion and confusion about the source of goods by ordinary consumers pursuant to the above provision.

(b) If the cited trademark acquired well-knownness by being widely known to most of the general public in addition to the related traders on the designated goods, the trademark may 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 use of the goods and the current status of sales and transactions, even though it is not only the goods to which the trademark was widely known or similar, but also the goods of a different kind. In such a case, consumers may mislead or confuse the source of the goods, or deceive consumers. In such a case, all of Article 9(1)10 and 11 of the former Trademark Act are applicable.

C. The case reversing the original decision on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 9 (1) 10 and 11 of the former Trademark Act, on the premise that the trademark applied for registration is invalid under Article 9 (1) 10 and 11 of the former Trademark Act, and that the trademark applied for registration was registered in violation of the above subparagraph 10 while it is not clear whether the cited trademark has been registered under the above subparagraph 10 was registered under the above subparagraph 10, and that the designated goods of the cited trademark are not similar to the designated goods of the cited trademark on the ground that the designated goods of the cited trademark do not need to be similar to the designated goods of the cited trademark even if the cited trademark did not be widely and clearly designated.

Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 7(1)11); Article 9(1)10 of the former Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu311 delivered on January 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 749) 92Hu278 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2670) 94Hu1527 delivered on February 3, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1163). Supreme Court Decision 87Hu7 delivered on December 27, 198 (Gong1989, 231) 88Hu219 delivered on June 27, 198 (Gong1989, 1165) 88Hu226 delivered on October 10, 190 (Gong190, 2274)

Nasan Unemployment Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and four others

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92Da104 dated November 29, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

(1) For the purpose of recognizing that there is a concern for deceiving consumers as stipulated in Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same), the cited trademark or its designated goods are not necessarily well-known or well-known, but at least in general transactions in Korea, if they are a trademark or goods, it should be so known to the extent that they can be perceived as a trademark or goods of a specific person. In such a case, only if a trademark identical with or similar to the cited trademark is used for the designated goods, it may cause general consumers to mistake or confuse the origin of goods (see Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1527, Feb. 3, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply). Meanwhile, if the cited trademark is widely known to the general public other than the related traders, it shall be deemed that there is a concern for consumers to misunderstand or confuse the origin of goods as well as that of goods under Article 9(10)28 of the former Trademark Act.17.

(2) According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the registered trademark of this case is identical or similar to the cited trademark which is an English trademark (the designated goods are 10 goods, such as 10 goods, etc., of the category 26 of the goods) and the cited trademark (the designated goods are goods of category 45 of the goods, including 10 goods, such as sprinks, spacks, spacks, slabs, spacks, spacks, and spacks, etc.) and that the cited trademark has reached a well-known trademark under Article 9 (1) 10 of the former Trademark Act, but it is not clear that the cited trademark has reached a well-known trademark under Article 9 (1) 10 of the former Trademark Act, but at least in domestic clothing or textile products, it is considerably known to the extent that ordinary consumers can be recognized as a trademark of a specific person if it is used as the cited trademark, and thus, the registered trademark of this case is invalid because it falls under Article 101 of the former Trademark Act.

However, in determining whether there exists a ground for invalidation of the trademark under Article 9(1)10 and 11 of the former Trademark Act, the court below held that the cited trademark was registered in violation of Article 9(1)10 of the former Trademark Act while it is not clear whether the cited trademark had been registered in a well-known trademark under Article 9(1)10 of the former Trademark Act, it is hard to avoid criticism that the trademark was registered in violation of Article 9(1)10 of the former Trademark Act, and on the other hand, even if the cited trademark is well-known or not-known, the designated goods of the cited trademark could only be used as the designated goods of the cited trademark, which are not similar to the designated goods of the cited trademark, on the premise that there is no need for similarity between the cited trademark and the designated goods of the cited trademark, which are not similar to the designated goods of the trademark of this case, which affected the conclusion of the trial decision by misapprehending the legal principles as to

(3) Therefore, without examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)