[1] The standard for determining whether a trademark constitutes "a trademark likely to mislead consumers" under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act (=the time when the trademark registration is decided)

[2] In a case where the cited trademark is known to the extent that it does not obtain well-knownness and is recognizable to consumers or traders as a trademark of a specific person, whether it constitutes a trademark only for consumers under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act even if another trademark is used for designated goods not identical or similar to the goods using the cited trademark (affirmative with qualification)

[3] The case holding that the trademark "POSCHEM" cannot be deemed as a trademark that is likely to deceive consumers in comparison with the cited mark "POSCO"

[1] Whether a trademark constitutes "a trademark likely to mislead consumers" under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act shall be determined at the time of the decision on trademark registration as to the application for trademark registration.

[2] In order to determine that there is a concern for deceiving consumers, the cited trademark or its goods are not necessarily required to be well-known, but at least those of general consumers or traders in Korea. In such a case, if a trademark identical or similar to the cited trademark is used on the designated goods identical or similar to the above goods, it may be said that there may be concerns for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse consumers as to the origin of the goods under the above provision. If the cited trademark acquired its well-knownness by widely known goods other than the parties related to the goods using it, it may be deemed that the goods or its similar goods are produced or sold by the well-known trademark or its similar goods, even if they are goods of the same or similar kind, and if it is used on the goods identical or similar to the cited trademark, it may be deemed that the trademark is not widely known to ordinary consumers to the extent that it might mislead or confuse consumers as to the origin of the goods, in light of the purpose of using the trademark or its unique relation with the trademark, even if it is used on goods different from those of the goods using it.

[3] The case holding that the trademark "POSCHEM" cannot be deemed as a trademark that is likely to deceive consumers in comparison with the cited mark "POSCO"

[1] Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act / [3] Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu412 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1111) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Hu2038 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2143) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3975, 3982 delivered on February 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 666), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2870 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2094)

Plaintiff (Attorney Song Young-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Po Port Integrated Steel Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Dakel, Attorneys Kim Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 99Heo2969 delivered on September 16, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act provides that "a trademark likely to mislead consumers" shall be determined at the time when the trademark registration is rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Hu2038, Jun. 22, 1993; 96Hu412, Mar. 14, 1997; 96Hu412, Jun. 2, 1997). If the cited trademark or its products are likely to mislead or confuse consumers as to the origin of goods, it shall not be necessarily well-known, but it shall be so long as it can be recognized as a specific person's trademark or goods if the trademark is used for the same or similar goods as the cited trademark or similar goods. Even if it is used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods, it is likely that ordinary consumers mistake or confuse the origin of goods to the extent that it is not widely known to consumers as to the extent that the trademark or similar goods are used by the cited goods, in light of the above provision regarding the origin of goods, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's trademark "POSM" (hereinafter referred to as "POSM") can not be seen as a trademark containing the name or abbreviation of the quoted mark "POSCO" (which is the defendant's trade name, Pool Co., Ltd.) for the same reason as that of the defendant's trademark 1, because it could not be seen as a trademark which is identical to the defendant's trademark 9-year mark if it was widely known that the defendant's trademark was identical to the defendant's trademark 9-year mark at the time of sale, and it could not be seen that the defendant's trademark was identical to the defendant's trademark 9-year mark because it was not widely known that the defendant's trademark was identical to the defendant's trademark 9-year mark at the time of sale, and it could not be seen that the defendant's trademark was identical to the defendant's trademark 9-year mark at the time of sale. However, considering the fact that the defendant's trademark was identical to the defendant's trademark 9-year mark that was identical to the defendant's trademark.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as to the well-knownness of the cited mark, or any violation of the rules of evidence, or any omission of judgment or incomplete hearing related to the defendant's subsidiary

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)