[판매등][공2006.11.15.(262),1914]
Requirements to ensure that an act of importing goods identical or similar to the designated goods on which a trademark identical or similar to the domestic registered trademark is attached does not constitute an infringement of the registered trademark right, etc.
In order to ensure that an act of importing goods identical or similar to the designated goods bearing a trademark identical or similar to a trademark registered in Korea does not constitute an infringement of the registered trademark right, the trademark should have been attached to the goods imported by the foreign trademark right holder or legitimate user, and the trademark attached to the imported goods should be deemed to be indicating the same source as the registered trademark in Korea due to the legal or economic relationship between the foreign trademark right holder and the Korean trademark right holder or any other circumstances. In addition, there should be no substantial difference between the imported goods and the goods bearing the registered trademark in Korea and the goods bearing the registered trademark in Korea. The quality difference means a difference between the performance, durability, etc. of the goods itself, and it does not mean a difference between customer support, free repair, and replacement of parts.
Articles 2(1)6, 55(3), and 66(1) of the Trademark Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2002Da61965 delivered on June 9, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1111)
Han Fran Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Oyang-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Defendant 1 and two others
Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na79761 decided June 7, 2006
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2
In order to ensure that an act of importing goods identical or similar to the designated goods on which a trademark is attached, which is identical or similar to the designated goods registered in Korea, does not constitute an infringement of the registered trademark right, the trademark should have been attached to the imported goods by the owner of the foreign trademark right or the legitimate user of the foreign trademark right, and the trademark attached to the imported goods by the owner of the foreign trademark right or the owner of the foreign trademark right in Korea is closely related to legal or economic aspects or under other circumstances so that the trademark attached to the imported goods can be seen as indicating the same origin as the registered trademark in Korea (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da61965, Jun. 9, 2005). In addition, there should be no substantial difference between the imported goods and the goods on which the owner of the Korean trademark right has attached the registered trademark. The quality difference in this context refers to a difference in the performance, durability, etc. of the goods itself, and it does not refer to a difference arising from the existence
In light of the above legal principles and the records, the imported goods of this case are so-called authentic goods sold in the United States by Blizarder Ba, a trademark right holder of the trademark "STRAFT" in the United States. The trademark right holder of the United States and domestic registered trademark right holder are identical to the above Blzard Ba, and with respect to the trademark "STRCRAFT" in this case, the plaintiff, an exclusive licensee, has an independent business credit in Korea, and cannot be deemed to have reached the recognition of the source of domestic registered trademark between domestic consumers as the plaintiff, not the trademark right holder of this case, but the domestic consumers. Thus, the imported goods of this case can be deemed to have indicated the source identical to the domestic registered trademark, and the imported goods of this case, which are game software markets through network, are digitalized goods and are somewhat different from the domestic goods of this case from the imported goods of this case, which are not identical to the domestic goods of this case, in light of the legal principles as to whether they are identical to the domestic goods of this case.
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3
In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence alleged in the grounds for appeal against the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)