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

(b) The case holding that since the cited trademark "VOGUE", which is a title of a magazine on the buppiness, beauty art, and art, which has a global influence on the bubing of a uniform style, is not deemed to be domestically well-known, it is deemed to have been recognized to a certain extent to domestic consumers, the respondent's registered trademark similar thereto is null and void in violation of Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act;

A. Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990) does not aim at protecting the existing trademark, but rather at preventing ordinary consumers from misunderstanding or confusion about the quality, origin, etc. of goods using a trademark already recognized as a trademark of a specific person, and protecting trust thereof. Thus, the goods or the trademark is not necessarily required to be well-known and well-known.

B. The case holding that, if the respondent's trademark registration ruling was issued in French French, approximately 100 years ago, and the defendant's trademark registration ruling was issued in several languages such as English and solar languages, and was issued in several languages and has a global influence on the prevalence of uniform, and the mark identical or similar to the "VOGUE" of the magazines on arts is registered as the petitioner's trademark in approximately 60 countries around the world, and in our country, the above magazine was brought into and distributed through domestic books or travelers, etc. before the above registration ruling was made, and the Korean language bill (VOGUE) was distributed in the city, and the French trademark list issued by the Korean Intellectual Property Office is also recorded as the petitioner's trademark, if the cited trademark is registered as the respondent's trademark, the respondent's foreign company is not well-known in the Republic of Korea, and if the respondent uses the registered trademark similar to this, it is likely to mislead general consumers as the respondent's product and thus, it is invalid under Article 19 (1) of the former Trademark Act.

Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990); Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 154 (Gong1987,648) (Gong1991, 480) (Gong1991, 480) and 90Hu311 decided Jan. 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 754)

Dozer Dozer Dozer Doz, Rocoal Rocop, Attorneys Kim Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Appellants

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 262 dated August 31, 1990

The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for Appeal.

The grounds of appeal by claimant are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the trademark registration of this case by the Defendant violated Article 9(1)10 and 11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same) and Article 9(1)10 and 11 of the former Trademark Act, and thus null and void on the ground that the trademark registration of this case is not in violation of Article 9(1)10 and 11 of the former Trademark Act.

(2) Article 9(1)11 of the former Trademark Act does not aim at protecting the existing trademark, but is aimed at preventing general consumers from misunderstanding and confusion about the quality, origin, etc. of goods using a trademark already recognized as a specific person’s trademark, and protecting trust in such activities. Thus, the goods or the trademark is not necessarily required to be widely known and clarified.

According to the records, the above evidence rejected by the court below is a book stating that the history of the magazine "VOGUE", which was published by the claimant, was old and has a global influence, and thus, it cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the date of publication is after the filing date of the trademark of this case. In full view of the above evidence and other evidences employed by the court below, "VOGUE" is a title of the magazine dealing with articles related to chronry and beauty and art, which was published in the French book in 1892, before January 18, 1984, the respondent's trademark registration ruling was published in several languages such as English and French, etc. before the time when the respondent's trademark registration ruling was issued in the French book in 1992, and a mark identical or similar to the above subparagraph 60 countries around the world, registered as the applicant's trademark, and registered as the trademark of this case, and thus, it can be recognized that it had a global influence on the claimant's chronologicalization in Korea.

Thus, even if the quoted trademark cannot be deemed domestically well-known, it seems that the foreign company's applicant's trademark is well-known to the extent of domestic consumers. Thus, if using similar registered trademark, it would be likely to mislead or confuse the respondent's goods as goods related to the claimant.

Therefore, even though the registration of the instant registered trademark against Article 9 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act is null and void, the court below erred in finding that the court below rejected all of the claimant's assertion for reasons as stated in its reasoning and erred in finding the value judgment of evidence, and in misunderstanding the purport of the provision of the above Act, which led to failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

(3) Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the original decision. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)