(a) Criteria for determining the well-knownness of trademarks;

(b) Cases recognized as well-known trademark;

(c) Permission or registration to renew the duration of another registered trademark, which is similar to a wellknown trademark (negative);

A. Whether a well-known trademark is recognized under Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act shall be the criteria for the use and supply of the trademark, the period, method, condition, scope of transaction, etc. of the trademark, and whether it is objectively widely known under the transaction circumstances or social norms.

(b) Cases recognized as well-known trademark;

C. If a registered trademark is identical or similar to a well-known trademark upon the renewal of the duration of the trademark, even if the designated goods are different from the goods of the well-known trademark, the use of the trademark is recognized as the modern industrial structure that produces and sells different goods throughout many different fields of industry and thus consumers are likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin or business of the goods by the owner of the well-known trademark or a person in a special relationship with the owner of the trademark, even though the designated goods are different from the goods of the well-known trademark. Thus, the Korean Intellectual Property Office must refuse

(a)Article 9(1)10(c) of the Trademark Act;

Supreme Court Decision 83Hu77 delivered on October 14, 1986, 82Hu14 delivered on April 23, 1985, and 80Hu54 delivered on April 8, 1986, and 87Hu6 delivered on February 28, 1989

Colonel (Attorney Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jin-gu A.S. Patent Attorney Yu Young-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 260 dated December 30, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The Commission's trial decision rejected the claimant's assertion on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the NIKE, the cited trademark of this case, is recognized remarkably among domestic consumers before the application for the renewal of the duration of the trademark of this case.

However, the issue of whether the so-called trademark "NIK" under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act is a standard for responding to the use, supply, period, method of business activities, solar and trade range, and whether or not it has been objectively known under social norms. (See Supreme Court Decision 83Hu767 delivered on October 14, 1986) The quoted trademark "NIK", which is registered in 82 countries around the world including the United States, which is the country where it is the owner of the trademark, was registered, and in Korea, 19420, the registration number of the above registered trademark No. 590, Jan. 9, 1979; 20600, 700, 700, 19679, 200, 190, 196, 207, 190, 207, 197, 200, 197, 197, 2005, etc.

Meanwhile, if a registered trademark falls under a trademark identical or similar to a well-known trademark due to the renewal of duration duration registration, even if the designated goods are different from the goods of the well-known trademark, the use of the trademark shall be deemed to be the modern industrial structure in which the company produces and sells other goods over several different fields of industry, and thus, it may cause consumers to mistake or confuse the origin of goods or business of the owner of the well-known trademark or a person in a special relationship with the owner of the well-known trademark, and thus, the Korean Intellectual Property Office shall refuse the registration of renewal of duration of the trademark of this case registered (see Supreme Court Decision 80Hu54, Apr. 8, 1986; 82Hu14, Apr. 23, 1985). Therefore, the renewal of the trademark of this case shall not be effective.

The court below's decision that the registered trademark of this case is not likely to cause confusion with the goods or business of the cited trademark is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration for renewal of the duration of the trademark right, or in the violation of the rules of evidence, and there is a ground for appeal pointing this out.

Therefore, the original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yoon Ma-tae (Presiding Justice)