A. Whether the registered trademark is similar to the cited trademark (affirmative)

(b) Where a well-known enterprise uses several trademarks, standards for determining whether a specific trademark is widely known;

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing as to whether the cited trademark was well known or not

A. The registered trademark consists of two or more different lines in which the word “KINCOT” and the word “KING” and the word “KINGT” and the word “KINGT” are combined with each other. On the other hand, the cited trademark consists of two parts: “KING” and “KINGOT” and “KING” and “KING” and “KIN” of the cited trademark are different from each other, because the cited trademark consists of two parts: “KING” and “KINT” and the word “KIN”, which are most easily perceived in the trademark, are less than concepts, but it is extremely similar that the registered trademark is “ KING” and it is extremely similar that the designated goods are identical in each other in the transaction of the designated goods, and thus, there is a concern that ordinary consumers or traders may confuse the source of goods.

B. In determining whether a trademark is a well-known trademark under Article 9 (1) 9 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990), the criteria for determining whether the trademark is widely known under the circumstances of transaction or social norms should be taken into consideration, taking into account the use, supply, period, method, mode, and scope of transaction, etc. of the trademark. In cases where a well-known company uses multiple trademarks, all of which are well-known trademarks, and thus, whether the trademark is widely known should be determined by whether the trademark is widely widely known using the trademark in detail.

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing as to whether the cited trademark was well known or not

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

Supreme Court Decision 87Hu57 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988, 348) 88Hu219 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1165) 89Hu2281 delivered on September 28, 1990 (Gong190, 2167)

Attorney Lee Dong-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Patent Attorney Jeong-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 88 No. 88 dated July 27, 1990

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

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

The ground of appeal by the respondent's agent is examined.

1. Whether the cited trademark and the registered trademark of this case are similar;

According to the records, the trademark of this case is composed of two parts, which combines "KINCOAT" and the subordinate parts of "KINCOT" as well as "KINGCOAT" and the subordinate parts of the words below, while the cited trademark consists of two parts, which combines "KINCOT" and "KINGCOAT" with "KINCOT", and its appearance differs. The "COT", which means "dol, lur, etc., means "COT", is a mark which usually indicates the characteristics of luminous, and this part is not a special distinction. The cited trademark's "KING" is recognized as "Wking, large," etc. while the cited trademark's "KING" is recognized as "GING", etc., and the cited trademark's "KING" is a "slcot trademark", and the trademark's "KING", which is most easily recognized as the trademark is a "cot", so it is reasonable to see that it is a general consumer's or a kind of designated goods in trade.

Therefore, although the court below did not explain the reasons in detail, the conclusion that the two trademarks are similar is reasonable, so there is no ground to discuss this point.

2. Whether the quoted trademark is a well-known trademark;

In determining whether a trademark is a so-called well-known trademark under Article 9 (1) 9 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990), the criteria for determining whether the trademark is widely known under the transaction circumstances or social norms should be taken into consideration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Hu34, Jan. 24, 1984; 86Hu219, Feb. 24, 1987; 88Hu219, Jun. 27, 199; 89Hu2281, Sept. 28, 1990; 89Hu2281, Sept. 28, 199; 200).

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence adopted by the claimant: (a) sold the quoted trademark nine times from February 1, 1962 such as verbal drugs and luminous ray; (b) sold the quoted trademark to Katatag, Esclas, etc.; (c) displayed the quoted trademark nine times in Katag, Esclas, etc.; (d) sold the Korean excellent goods distribution; and (e) from November 1, 1983 to November 1, 1985, the sales performance of approximately KRW 180 million and the net income for 1985 to KRW 120,000,000; and (e) recognized the fact that the quoted trademark is widely known to the luminous industry as the applicant's trademark; and (e) recognized that prior to the application of the instant trademark, the cited trademark has been remarkably recognized by the Korea Health Management Service Association prior to the application of the cited trademark.

However, according to the records and records, Gap evidence Nos. 20 through 35, and Gap 51's evidence Nos. 1 through 8 are examined. The claimant has sold approximately 78,228,50 won in total of the products bearing the quoted trademark from Apr. 1, 1983 to Nov. 1, 1985 prior to the application for the registration of the trademark of this case (the original judgment seems to be added to the sales amount of products bearing the Amado trademark) and Gap No. 39's evidence Nos. 39-1 to the above closing notice was a newspaper with the applicant company's annual net income in the pertinent year, and the products bearing the cited trademark in addition to the cited trademark No. 14 or 14, or the products bearing the cited trademark from Nov. 1, 1983 were not widely known from the applicant company's certificate of net income, and the court below did not find the fact that the plaintiff's products with the cited trademark are not widely known from the Korean Association No. 4.

In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 3, 17-1 through 16 (Kaviro, Receipt, etc.), and evidence Nos. 37 through 38-8 (the total value of good goods in Korea, comprehensive price information area), etc. of the claimant company's business activity period, cited trademark advertisement and publicity, the fact finding by the court below is acceptable. However, in this case where there is no data to regard that the luminous products of the cited trademark are limited to the members of the above association or building management service providers, it is difficult to view that the luminous products of the luminous products in the above company's luminous products or market size, and the ratio of the claimant's products to the product or the luminous products transaction volume, etc., as seen above, have been recognized during the sale period of two years and seven months, and it can not be seen that the advertising effect has been rapidly, rapidly, or too wide and broad to the consumers of the cited trademark.

Therefore, the lower court determined that the cited trademark is a well-known trademark, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, in so doing, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the well-known trademark.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench and the case shall be reversed, and the appeal shall be remanded to the appellant.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)