Whether only a trademark registered and advertised in a foreign country can be seen as a well-known or well-known trademark in Korea.

The issue of whether a trademark is likely to cause confusions with the release of well-known or well-known goods or business prescribed in the Trademark Act shall be independently determined in accordance with the legal system, transaction, etc. of each country. Barring special circumstances, a Japanese trademark with a clover leaf leaves in English, which is not a registered trademark of Korea, is registered in several countries in the world, and even if the trademark and designated goods are advertised, it cannot be readily concluded that the goods or business related to the above trademark are considerably recognized among general consumers in Korea.

Articles 9(1)9 and 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act

Guro-gu Patent Attorney Ha-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Appellant (Patent Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

On September 29, 1980, the Korean Intellectual Property Office (No. 86 of the 1977 Appeal Board No. 86 of the 1977 Appeal Board) Decision 80

Supreme Court Decision 80Hu17 Delivered on April 22, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

1.First of all, the ground of appeal No. 1 is examined as the claimant's agent.

According to the records, a party member's assertion as to Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, which was the cause of this case's claim before the remand of this case, cannot be applied to the case where the claimant's claim is based on the same kind of product. The court below reversed and remanded the original decision before remand to the court for further proceedings consistent with the interpretation of Article 9 (1) 10 of the same Act. The court below reversed and remanded the case for these reasons. "Article 9 (1) 9 of the False Trademark Act is presumed to prohibit the registration of a trademark in conflict with the well-known or well-known trademark, and it is clear that subparagraph 10 of the same Article is the premise of the existing trademark to prevent confusion between the release of the goods or services of the well-known or well-known trademark, and it is not clear that subparagraph 9 of the same Article 10 is the premise of this case's goods or services, and it is not possible to reverse the judgment of the court below in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment below.

2. Next, we examine the second ground for appeal by the attorney Lee Tae-hee (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds for appeal by the attorney Lee Tae-hee, who is the appellant).

According to the original decision, the court below held that, even if this case's registered trademark was used in Japan with English letters or letters "Clover" and it applied for May 31, 1965 as designated goods, and later registered June 23, 1975 and applied for renewal of the duration of trademark rights to which it had been registered in Korea, and then its rights remain effective until June 12, 1976, the court below held that even if this case's registered trademark was used in Japan with English letters or letters "Clover" and it had been widely known that it had been used in Korea with its registered trademark "Clover" as a trademark, which is a trademark for which a claimant had been registered in Japan for more than 50 years, and it is hard to see that the registered trademark was used domestically and publicly known to consumers as a new trademark in violation of the provisions of Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act (hereinafter referred to as "recognitioned trademark"), the court below's determination that this case's registered trademark was not widely known to consumers in Korea with the trademark right to which had been used.

In comparison with the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified and they should be judged independently in accordance with social circumstances, such as legal affairs and transactions in each country. Barring special circumstances, the cited trademark is not registered in several countries around the world, and there is no evidence or evidence that goods or services related to the quoted trademark are well-known among Korean consumers. In this case, it cannot be concluded that the above fact-finding and decision of the court below does not necessarily contain a significant recognition among Korean ordinary consumers. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the mistake or confusion of goods or services under the Trademark Act, such as theory of original decision of the court below, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by failing to err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the mistake or confusion, or by failing to exhaust all necessary reasons, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, the court below's decision that the cited trademark is identical to the above judgment of the court below after the conclusion that the cited trademark is not identical to the above judgment of the court below as a legitimate ground for appeal No. 20, as a new or new evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the claimant who lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)