The costs of the lawsuit in the appellate trial shall be borne by the plaintiff's expenses incurred by the defendant's appeal and by the plaintiff's incidental appeal.

The purport of the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal: The part against the Plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked. The Defendant shall not use the trademark “ASPIRIN” or sell and disseminate each of the above drugs to use it on the piracy ASPIRIN” or its gambling, packaging or propaganda materials, etc. manufactured and sold by him.

Therefore, even if the defendant was registered as the registered trademark in the attached Form (3) as the registered trademark of the piracy and the JASIRIN, which he manufactured and sold, the defendant actually committed an act corresponding to the unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act by using the "ASPR-A" in the attached Form (4) similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, such an act as the gambling paper, packing paper, packing paper, etc., and thereby, it is likely to infringe the plaintiff's business interest. Thus, the plaintiff has the right to seek suspension of its use against the defendant.

However, the defendant asserts first, as in the above, that the defendant registered the above registered trademark with the Patent Office on June 8, 1974 as stated in the separate sheet (3) and used it. Thus, the defendant claims that the plaintiff's main claim is unjustifiable because the defendant's claim is made in accordance with Article 7 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Thus, the defendant's trademark registration with the Patent Office as stated in the separate sheet (3) of June 8, 1974 should be applied to the above registered trademark (the scope of the trademark should be regardless of the Korean or foreign sign or sign of the similar trademark) even if the above registered trademark was registered with the Patent Office as stated in the separate sheet (3) as of June 8, 1974, the above registered trademark "ASIRIN" and its appearance, name, and concept which had already been widely known in the Republic of Korea as the plaintiff's trademark at the time of the application, and as long as the defendant's use of the above registered trademark is objectively obvious, regardless of whether the plaintiff's intent to take advantage of the trademark, it should not be legitimate.

Second, the defendant's assertion that "ASPRIN" registered as the trademark of the plaintiff company was made in reducing ASPR luxic Acid, which is a chemical name with the efficacy of dust, piracy, etc., and is already expressed as a pharmaceutical material in each country, and as such, "ASPRIN" is already used as a drug material lacking the registration requirements as a trademark because it has no special distinction, and thus, the plaintiff's claim that the above plaintiff's claim is unfair because it is based on the premise that the above trademark is valid because it has no value of protection as a trademark, it is not reasonable. Thus, according to the 3 (Standard Language Piction), No. 3 (Korean Language Preliminary), No. 6 through 8 (PPR No. S.), etc.'s statements in the Korean language and Japanese Pharmacopoeia, etc., the defendant's assertion that the above "ASPPRIN" cannot be determined as a trademark of the plaintiff's prior knowledge, etc., but it cannot be determined that the above "ASIPRIN is a "general," as a general trademark.

Third, the plaintiff company's above trademark "ASPRIN" appeared for a long time, and there was a trial decision to revoke the above trademark registration, and thus the plaintiff's above trademark cannot be protected as a registered trademark. Thus, if the plaintiff's above trademark is all the whole purport of the party's argument in Eul evidence No. 3-2 ( trial decision) without dispute about the establishment, the non-party joint chemical industry corporation filed a request against the plaintiff with the Patent Bureau for the cancellation of registration No. 3,607, which is the plaintiff's main registered trademark, against the Patent Bureau as the plaintiff's trial decision No. 328 of December 27, 1974, the plaintiff company's trademark registration was revoked on the ground that the plaintiff company permitted the use of the above registered trademark to the non-party Mono medicine in Korea and the Korea Ubael corporation, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff, which is not legitimate until the plaintiff's appeal against the above decision No. 187, the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff's appeal against the above invalidation is invalid. 17.

Finally, even if the "ASPRIN" is valid as a registered trademark of the Plaintiff company, the Plaintiff consented to the use of the trademark, which is a domestic company of the Plaintiff, and thus, it should be revoked as a matter of course pursuant to Article 15 of the Trademark Act. However, unlike the former Trademark Act, the current Trademark Act (No. 2506 of February 8, 1973), unlike the former Trademark Act, may complete the registration of the establishment of a non-exclusive license, and allow the Plaintiff to use the trademark (Article 29 of the Trademark Act) on January 18, 1975, on the ground that the Plaintiff registered the establishment of a non-exclusive license of the above Korea LAFIN to the Korea LAFA and caused the use of the trademark (Articles 13-1 and 2 of the Evidence 13-1 of the Trademark Act). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

In addition, the plaintiff also claims that the defendant use ASPIR as a trademark entirely identical to the above registered trademark of the plaintiff company for the suspension of its use. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant is using the above plaintiff's trademark. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal and the incidental appeal of the plaintiff shall be dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Don (Presiding Judge)

The judge's approval rule is a retirement and it is impossible to sign and affix a seal (Presiding Justice).