[상표법위반][공2005.7.15.(230),1205]
[1] Whether a mark, which is indicated only on the inside parts of an industrial product, can be deemed as a trademark of the product, even if the product is dismantled, but can be perceived by ordinary consumers (negative)
[2] In a case where a mark similar to the registered trademark of another person is used to explain the function of the product or to clarify the type to which the function of the product is applied, whether it may be deemed as trademark infringement (negative)
[3] The case holding that the trademark "SONY" mark on the inner circuit board of the remote line (mix) sold by the defendant cannot be deemed as being used as a trademark, and further, it cannot be deemed that the defendant used the trademark identical to the "SONY" mark on the above remote line surface
[1] A trademark is an expression of a particular business entity's goods, which ensures the dignity and character of the goods by distinguishing their origin. The Trademark Act protects the business trust interests of the owner of the trademark constructed by the use of the trademark, maintains order in distribution, and protects the interests of consumers by protecting the function of distinguishing the origin and quality assurance of the trademark. Thus, the trademark is a mark indicated on the parts that are assembled inside and functiond in the product, and its existence is not known in the distribution of the product or ordinary use or maintenance of the product. Only when the product is dismantled, it cannot be viewed as a trademark as a trademark under the Trademark Act because the trademark cannot function as a trademark on the product.
[2] Even where a mark similar to another person's registered trademark is used, if it is not intended to indicate the source that it is the essential function of the trademark, but to explain the function of the goods or to clarify the type in which the function of the goods is applied, and it is not recognizable as the use of the trademark, the trademark right of the registered trademark cannot
[3] The case holding that since the mark "SONY", which is marked on the inner circuit board of the remote line (mix) sold by the defendant, cannot be viewed as a trademark used as a trademark, it can only be seen as indicating the above remote line use, and it cannot be seen as using the trademark identical to the registered trademark "SONY", on the ground that it can be seen as the meaning of "the marking of the mark "the only use of Zine" on the surface of the above remote line is "the use of the device easily available to various devices"
[1] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 66 subparagraph 1 and 93 of the Trademark Act / [3] Articles 2 (1) 1, 66 subparagraph 1, and 93 of the Trademark Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do3287 delivered on November 7, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3954), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1821 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2670) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Do1424 delivered on February 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 830) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1355 Delivered on July 13, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1902) (Gong2002Da63640 delivered on October 10, 203)
Defendant
Defendant
Law Firm Jin Law, Attorney Gu Sung-sung
Seoul Western District Court Decision 2004No1120 decided Feb. 3, 2005
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. Summary of the facts charged
The defendant is a commercial person. From February 2004 to May 6, 2004, the defendant purchased a remote steering machine from the non-indicted 150 won per 10,000 won from the non-indicted 1, and sold it to many unspecified consumers by displaying and keeping 11,190,000 won in the remaining 119 market prices for sales purposes. The defendant infringed the trademark right of the above company by displaying and keeping the remote steering machine from the non-indicted 119 to the non-indicted 1,199 market prices.
2. The judgment of the court below
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the use of another person's registered trademark on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods constitutes an act infringing another person's trademark right. However, even if it is used by another person's registered trademark, it cannot be deemed an act infringing another person's trademark right if it is not an act of using a trademark. Whether it is used as a trademark shall be determined by considering the relation with the goods, the mode of use of the mark (i.e., the location, size, etc. indicated on the goods), the widely known and well-knownness of the registered trademark, the user's intent, and the process of use, etc., as well as the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court of first instance, that the mark is used only at the bottom of the goods without any other source indication, and that the manufacturer or manufacturer of the above products, which is a registered trademark, is likely to use the above products as a small-sized product, and that the manufacturer or manufacturer of the above products, which is a manufacturer of the above products, can be seen as being widely known or widely known.
3. Judgment of the Supreme Court
A trademark is an official commendation of a particular business entity's goods, which guarantees the dignity and character of the goods by distinguishing the identity of its source. The Trademark Act protects the business trust interests of a trademark owner constructed by the use of the trademark, maintains order in distribution, and protects the interests of consumers (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do3287, Nov. 7, 1995; 95Hu1821, Jul. 30, 1996; 95Hu1821, Jul. 30, 1996). A trademark is a mark marked on a part that is assembled and functiond inside the goods of a particular business entity, and its existence is not known in the distribution or ordinary use or maintenance of the goods, and it cannot be viewed as a trademark under the Trademark Act because the trader or ordinary consumers can not function as a trademark on the goods.
In addition, even if a mark similar to another person's registered trademark is used, it is not for the essential function of the trademark, but for the purpose of explaining the function of the goods or disclosing the model that applies to the function of the goods, and it is not recognizable as the use of the trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1424, Feb. 14, 1997; 2001Do1355, Jul. 13, 2001; 2002Da63640, Oct. 10, 203).
In light of the above legal principles and records, even if the parts of the trademark "SONY", which were assembled and functiond inside the remote line, sold by the defendant, are widely known in terms of distributing, using, or maintaining the remote line, it cannot be deemed as a trademark used as a trademark, and the above "SONY" mark cannot be deemed as a trademark used as a trademark, even if the aforementioned remote line is dismantled only when ordinary consumers or ordinary consumers can recognize, and the above mark is marked on the inner circuit board, there are many cases where the above mark is displayed on the lower part of the products sold by the defendant, and even if there are many circumstances that the manufacturer's mark was not clear in terms of the products sold by the defendant, it cannot be seen as being used as a trademark "limited to the surface of the remote line sold by the defendant," and it cannot be seen as an unlawful act of using the registered trademark "limited to ZNY" in the above Article 5860, and it can be seen as a trademark "limited to ZNY" in the above case where it can be easily used in the above distance range of equipment.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)