2. The debtor shall not indicate each mark listed in the list (attached Form 1) on each land listed in the list (attached Form 2), the outer wall of each building on each land, the entrance of a housing complex, and the entrance of each building, or make, attach, or display a signboard or sculpture bearing such a mark.

3. The debtor shall not produce or distribute printed matters, such as public relations books, leaflets, etc. bearing each mark indicated in the list (attached Form 1);

4. The debtor pays to the creditor the amount of KRW 3,00,000 each time of the violation (one day in the case of maintaining the violation) where the debtor violates the obligations set forth in paragraphs (1) through (3) from May 1, 2018 to the creditor.

5. Paragraphs (1) through (4) above are the condition that a creditor deposit KRW 100,000,000 as security for a debtor or submits a payment guaranty insurance policy with the amount insured.

6. The remaining motion of the obligee is dismissed.

7. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the obligor;

According to the records, each of the following facts is proved:

A. Status of the parties

The creditor is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act") for the housing redevelopment project of the real estate unit in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul for the housing redevelopment project of the 526-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul.

B. The registered trademark of this case and the exclusive license of creditors

On January 25, 2018, an obligee completed the registration of establishment of an exclusive license with respect to each of the following trademarks (hereinafter referred to as “instant registered trademark”); from January 25, 2018 to January 24, 2020; and from the Republic of Korea and designated goods as the designated service business of each trademark.

(i) First registered trademark (Evidence No. 3-1)

○ The filing date/registration date/ the renewal date/registration number: July 23, 2003/ October 7, 2004/ August 4, 2014 (registration number 1 omitted)

○ Composition:

○ Designated service business: Building sale business, real estate management business, real estate rental business, real estate brokerage business, office rent business, apartment management business, apartment lease business, housing management business, housing brokerage business, and waterway management business under Chapter 36.

2) Second registered trademark (Evidence No. 3-2)

○ The filing date/registration date/ the renewal date/registration number: July 23, 2003/ October 7, 2004/ August 4, 2014 (registration number 2 omitted)

○ Composition:

○ Designated service business: Building sale business, real estate management business, real estate rental business, real estate brokerage business, office rent business, apartment management business, apartment lease business, housing management business, housing brokerage business, and waterway management business under Chapter 36.

(c) Marks of the debtor's use;

On July 5, 2016, the debtor, through a housing redevelopment project, prescribed the name of the apartment (attached Form 2) newly built in the real estate unit (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment of this case”) listed in the list of real estate (attached Form 1), as “Seefashing in the efashing market,” and attached Form 1, sold the building by using the mark listed in paragraph 4 (d) of the list, and displayed the above mark on the outer wall of the newly constructed apartment, the entrance of the housing complex, and the entrance of each building for public use.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Creditor's assertion

The debtor, using the "See-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa

B. The debtor's assertion

1) The debtor only uses the instant mark No. 4 for the sale of a building, and the said mark contains “,” which is a well-known service mark of the Daelim Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tlim Industry”) and is not similar to the instant registered trademark, and there is no concern for consumers to mislead and confuse both trademarks.

2) The registered trademark of this case is made of a technical mark explaining the quality and purpose of the designated service, and thus its registration should be invalidated. Thus, an obligee’s application, which is obviously invalid, constitutes abuse of rights.

3. Determination

A. Whether the registered trademark of this case and the mark No. 4 of this case are similar

1) Criteria for determination

In principle, the similarity of a trademark consisting of two or more characters or diagrams should be determined based on the overall appearance, name, and concept of the trademark. However, if a trademark contains an essential part, it is necessary to compare and determine the similarity of a trademark with an essential part in order to induce the conclusion of an appropriate overall observation in cases where there is an essential part, that is, a part that independently performs the function of indicating the origin of goods by raising an impression of the trademark among ordinary consumers, or by inducing ordinary consumers to memory or associate with the trademark. The similarity of a trademark should be determined by comparing only the essential part, regardless of any other constituent part, with an independent distinctive character recognized by ordinary consumers. Thus, if a trademark contains an essential part, the similarity of a trademark can be determined by comparing the essential part without examining whether the part exists with the essential part. Whether the constituent part of a trademark is essential or not shall be determined based on the elements, such as whether the part is well known or well-known, or that a strong increase is occupied by ordinary consumers, or whether the part constitutes a high weight in the entire trademark, but it shall be determined based on the degree of comparison with other parts (see Supreme Court Decision 2016).

2) Specific determination

A) The part of the mark No. 4 of this case

The marks No. 4 of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant marks”) consisting of the marks consisting of the Korean characters of the English short language “Htills”, “” and “Htills”, both of which consisting of the Chinese characters of the English short language, namely, the abbreviations in the area where the instant apartment is located,” “a abbreviations,” “a park,” and “Ptills,” and “a combination of the two.”

Of the instant mark No. 4, “” is widely known as a brand name commonly applied to apartment complexes that are executed by the Daelim Industry, and is used as part of the name in multiple apartment complexes across the country including the instant apartment buildings and creditors’ apartment complexes (e.g., e., g., the apartment complexes). In addition, “” is an abbreviation of the administrative district (Yho-dong 3) in which the instant apartment is located, and is used in addition to the name of the apartment complex. Considering that it is general, it is weak to distinguish in relation to the building sales business, etc.

한편 아파트의 명칭과 관련하여, 건설사가 자신이 시공하는 아파트에 공통으로 붙이는 브랜드명과 지명에 애칭 내지 별칭(펫네임)을 부가하여 사용하는 사례가 다수 존재한다(피고의 답변서에도 이러한 사례로 ‘래미안 서초스위트’, ‘래미안 옥수리버젠’, ‘래미안 도곡카운티’, ‘래미안 대치팰리스’, ‘래미안 신반포팰리스’, ‘래미안 강동팰리스’, ‘e편한세상 독산더타워’, ‘e편한세상 상도노빌리티’, ‘e편한세상 송파파크센트럴’, ‘e편한세상 창원파크센트럴’ 등을 들고 있다). 이러한 거래실정에 비추어 볼 때, 일반 거래자나 수요자들로서는 이 사건 제4 표장이 대림산업의 브랜드명인 ‘ ’, 행정구역명인 ‘ ’, 아파트단지의 애칭 내지 별칭(펫네임)인 ‘ ’가 결합한 것임을 쉽게 인식할 수 있다. 또한, 앞서 본 바와 같이 건설사의 공통 브랜드명은 다수의 아파트단지에 적용되는 것이고, 행정구역명은 건물분양업 등과 관련하여 식별력이 미약한 반면에 ‘ ’ 부분은 이 사건 아파트의 애칭 내지 별칭(펫네임)에 해당하는 부분이어서 일반 수요자에게 가장 두드러지게 인식될 가능성이 높다. 실제로도 이 사건 아파트의 입주자들이 개설한 것으로 보이는 네이버 카페명으로 ‘금호 파크힐스’가 사용되고(소갑 제6호증), 뉴스기사에서 이 사건 아파트를 ‘파크힐스’로 지칭(소갑 제16호증)하는 등 이 사건 제4 표장은 ‘파크힐스’ 또는 ‘금호파크힐스’로 약칭되거나 인식되고 있다.

In full view of the relative distinctive level or combination status of each constituent part of the mark, relationship with the service business using the mark, transaction room, etc., “” refers to the part of the mark No. 4, which independently performs the function of indicating the source of goods or service, by causing ordinary consumers to feel an impression of the trademark, memory, or associate with the trademark among the marks No. 4 of this case, and constitutes the part of the mark No. 4 of this case.

B) Preparation for the registered trademark of this case and the mark No. 4 of this case

The first registered trademark of this case is a mark consisting of English language “,” and English language “,” both in the English language and English language, meaning the park. The second registered trademark of this case is a mark consisting of “,” “,” and “Htill,” both of which are the Korean translitation of “PAR”. Both of the registered trademark of this case are called “surl” and “park and words,” etc. It is understood as “surl,” and “surl,” both of which are the essential parts of the fourth registered trademark of this case. In addition, the term “surl,” which are the main parts of the trademark of this case, is only different from the parts in which “surl,” which are commonly used in the multiple forms of English language, is called “s” and is understood as meaning “park and morality,” and is similar to the instant registered trademark of this case.

B. Judgment on the grounds of abuse of rights by the debtor

We examine whether there exist grounds for invalidation of registration under Article 6(1)3, 4, and 7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) on the instant registered trademark.

First, whether a trademark constitutes a trademark consisting solely of a mark indicating the quality, efficacy, etc. of the designated goods under Article 6 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act in a common way shall be objectively determined by taking into account the concept of the trademark, the relationship with the designated goods, the degree of ordinary consumers or traders’ understanding and understanding of the trademark, the circumstances of the transaction society, etc. Even if the trademark appears to suggest or emphasize the quality, efficacy, shape, etc. of the designated goods, the trademark cannot be recognized as indicating the mere quality, efficacy, shape, etc. of the designated goods when considering the overall composition of the trademark. (See Supreme Court Decisions 94Hu170 delivered on February 10, 1995, 2002Hu140 delivered on August 16, 2004, etc.). In this case, the registered trademark of this case can not be seen as a combination of the “PA” or “HL business” under the name of the general trader or consumers or consumers with respect to the designated goods.

In addition, the registered trademark of this case does not fall under a conspicuous geographical name, and it does not seem that around October 7, 2004, the registration date of the registered trademark of this case, many people use the registered trademark of this case with respect to the designated service business, and it does not seem to be a trademark which does not enable consumers to identify whose business it indicates goods.

Therefore, the debtor's assertion on a different premise is rejected.

(c)the need for conservation rights and conservation;

1) As seen earlier, the obligor uses the instant mark No. 4 similar to the instant registered trademark for the sales business of a building, thereby infringing on the obligee’s exclusive license for the instant registered trademark, and as such, the instant mark No. 1 through 3 may also be used as part or an abbreviation of the instant mark No. 4, the obligee’s preserved right to seek provisional disposition as described in the Disposition No. 1 through 3 against the obligor is clearly explained. Furthermore, as long as the obligor still uses the mark, the necessity of the order to preserve the provisional disposition is recognized.

2) Meanwhile, in addition to the “building sale business”, a creditor seeks prohibition on the use of each mark of this case in relation to the above service business, but there is no evidence to deem that the debtor uses each mark of this case in relation to the above service business, and it is difficult to view that the debtor is a housing redevelopment improvement project association established for the housing redevelopment project in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government under the Urban Improvement Act, such as Geumdong-dong 1, and is engaged in the above service business. Therefore, the creditor’s application for this part is rejected.

(d) Indirect compulsory performance;

Furthermore, in light of the overall purport of the record and examination of this case, since it is deemed that the debtor might violate the provisional disposition order of this case notwithstanding the order of provisional disposition of this case, the order of indirect compulsory enforcement shall be made to guarantee the effectiveness of provisional disposition of this case, but the date of indirect compulsory enforcement shall be from May 1, 2018, taking into account the period required for removal, etc. of the already installed mark into account, and the amount of indirect compulsory enforcement shall be 3,000,000 won per violation (one day in case of maintaining the violation) by taking into account the degree of damage to the creditor, difficulty in recovering damage, and all other circumstances as seen earlier.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the application of this case is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and it is accepted as the condition of security, and the remaining application is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

[Attachment 1] List: omitted

[Attachment 2] List: omitted

Judges Go-jin (Presiding Judge)