(a) the registration of a trademark, regardless of the quality of the good, which might mislead consumers as to the origin of the good;

(b) Registration of a trademark similar to a trademark known in the general trade system, which is not an well-known and well-known trademark, but is a trademark or product of a specific person;

A. The trademark that misleads consumers or might mislead consumers as to the quality of the goods as prescribed by Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) includes the case where there is a concern that consumers might deceive consumers by causing mistake as to the origin of the goods irrespective of the quality of the goods.

B. The purpose of the preceding paragraph is not to protect the existing trademark, but to prevent general consumers' misunderstanding or confusion about the quality, origin, etc. of goods using a trademark already recognized as a trademark of a specific person, and to protect the trust thereof. Thus, if the goods or the trademark is not necessarily known and well-known, but at least if it is known to general consumers or traders at least to the extent that it can be perceived as the goods or the trademark of a specific person if the goods or the trademark is used in the same designated goods, it may cause confusion or confusion about the origin of the goods if it is used in the same designated goods.

Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 86Hu156 Decided March 10, 1987 (Gong1987,648). Supreme Court Decision 89Hu353 Decided November 10, 1989 (Gong1990,35) B. Supreme Court Decision 87Hu67 Decided October 26, 1987

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Busan Food Industry Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89 No. 339 dated March 10, 1990

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the registered trademark of this case (the registered trademark number 98089, and the statement of the decision of the court below 98098) by its adopted evidence constitutes a trademark consisting of Korean characters called "diet" and applied on March 29, 1983 as designated goods and registered on January 23, 1984; on the other hand, since January 1, 1976, the claimant manufactured and sold the product name of "diet (b)" from around January 1, 1976, on the ground that it is likely to defame a specific nation, but it was rejected on the ground that it is likely to defame a specific nation, but continued to sell the product name "diet (b)" with which the registered trademark of this case was attached, and the product name "A" to which the registered trademark of this case had been sold, and the product name "A" to the extent that it could be seen as being invalid as Gap's trademark No. 1 to the extent that it could be seen as Gap's No. 1 to be known to 15 years 1.

In the process of adopting Gap evidence No. 4 (Written Confirmation of Product Sale Results), it is legitimate that the court below confirmed the head of Dongjak Tax Office, the document confirming agency, and adopted it as evidence through the confirmation comparison procedure on the settlement of accounts, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence selection such as the theory of lawsuit and no violation of the rules of evidence selection. In light of the records of the court below's evidence preparation selection process, the court below'

2. The purpose of the latter part of Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act is not to protect the existing trademark, but to protect the public interest in the quality, origin, etc. of goods recognized as a trademark by preventing mistake or confusion among consumers (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu156, Mar. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 89Hu353, Nov. 10, 1989; 89Hu353, Nov. 10, 1989; 89Hu36, Nov. 10, 1989; 86Hu156, Mar. 10, 1987; 86Hu156, Mar. 10, 1987). Thus, the latter part of the above provision is not to protect the general consumers from being mistaken or confused with the goods of a specific person, and thus, it is not to be determined that there is a concern for general consumers to cite or confuse with the goods of the same person.

Examining the contents of evidence No. 12 and evidence No. 152 adopted by the court below based on the records, the claimant, from January 1, 1976, manufactured and sold the product title "(s)" with the cited trademark, 14.2 billion won or more until 1985, 30 times in the juvenile daily newspaper for children, 32 times in the juvenile daily newspaper, 32 times in the juvenile daily newspaper, 1977, and 16 times in the children's daily newspaper, 177, 11 times in the juvenile daily newspaper, 17 times in the Korean daily newspaper, 19, 2 times in the new daily newspaper, and 17 times in the new daily newspaper, 197, 17.1 times in the previous Trademark Act, which was recognized as invalid by the court below as 17.1 times in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to recognize that the trademark was in violation of the trademark law No. 971, Jan. 2, 1977.

The Supreme Court Decision 87Hu52 Decided December 22, 1987 cited by the theory of the lawsuit is not appropriate in this case. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)