Patent Court Decision, 2019Heo4871, decided April 2, 2020 (Kumkang Case)
The fact that the Trademarks in Actual Use3) are so similar that they might
cause confusion as to the source of the product when compared to the Subject
Trademarks, the fact that the Subject Trademarks4) had at least already been
used by Korean consumers or trading parties when the Trademarks in Actual
Use were in use, the fact that while the extent to which the Trademarks in
Actual Use were known among the consumers seems to be far less than that
of the Subject Trademarks, and the fact that the Product in Use of the
Trademarks in Actual Use and the Product in Use of the Subject Trademarks
are intimately related economically, among others, it may be said that the
Trademarks in Actual Use might cause confusion with the products related
to the business of the defendant for consumers or trading parties in the
relationship with the Subject Trademarks.
If the trademark holder knew about the existence of a Subject Trademark
which may cause misunderstanding or confusion and used the Trademark in
Actual Use which is the same or similar to the Subject Trademark, it may
be said that there was an intention to unlawfully use the trademark, and in
particular, if the Subject Trademark is a publicly known or well-known
trademark, unless any special circumstances exist, such as where one failed
to perceive of the existence of the Subject Trademark or mark product, it
is possible to presume the existence of the intention.
In view of the Subject Trademarks' reputation, it is presumed that there was
an intention to unlawfully use the registered trademark for the act of using
a similar Trademarks in Actual Use, and there is no other evidence to suggest
that the plaintiff failed to perceive the existence of the Subject Trademarks.