[상표등록무효][공1988.6.1.(825),912]
Interested persons entitled to request a trial for invalidation of trademark registration under Article 43(2) of the Trademark Act
An interested person who can request a trial for invalidation of a trademark as referred to in Article 43 (3) of the Trademark Act refers to a person who has a direct interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark. Thus, in common, the person who used or currently uses the same or similar trademark, but it does not use the same or similar trademark only once, and even if it does not engage in the same kind of business as the designated business of the registered trademark, if the person who rejected the registration of the trademark does not have a direct interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark, he shall be included in the interested person who can request a trial for revocation
Article 43(3) of the Trademark Act
Supreme Court Decision 75Hu4 delivered on June 11, 1976, 80Hu94 delivered on April 27, 1982, 88Hu165, 172, 189, 196 delivered on April 25, 198
claimant
Dong Cat and Patent Attorney Lee Dong-young
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 243 dated December 31, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.
The grounds of appeal by the appellant are examined.
An interested party entitled to file a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration of a trademark under Article 43 (3) of the Trademark Act refers to a person who has a direct interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark, and thus, common is the person who uses or currently uses the same or similar trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 80Hu94 delivered on April 27, 1982). However, even if a person does not have any identical or similar trademark used at one time, and even if he does not engage in the same kind of business as the designated trademark, he cannot have a direct interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark, if he applied for the registration, but refuses the registration on the ground that it is identical or similar to the registered trademark, he is not a person who has a direct interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 75Hu4 delivered on June 11, 1976).
According to the records, the claimant filed an application for trademark registration on October 29, 1980, but rejected the registration on the ground that the title of the applied trademark on April 15, 1982 is similar to that of the registered trademark of this case. Thus, the claimant is justified in the original decision to the same effect as the claimant is an interested party entitled to file a petition for the invalidation trial of the registered trademark of this case. As long as the court below's conclusion is acceptable, even if it was erroneous during the theory of the original decision, it does not affect the result of the trial decision.
As a result, we cannot accept the argument of the court below on the ground that there is an error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete hearing, and lack of reasoning.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)