beta
대법원 1994. 2. 25. 선고 92후2380, 2397, 2403(병합) 판결

[상표등록취소][공1994.4.15.(966),1108]

Main Issues

A. The meaning of an interested person who is entitled to request a trial for revocation of trademark registration

(b) The case holding that if there are circumstances under which a service mark similar to the registered trademark for seeking revocation was filed and a rejection ruling was rejected, it constitutes an interested person

C. Whether the person is an interested party at an ex officio examination

Summary of Judgment

(a) An interested party under Article 43 (2) of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990) which is entitled to request a revocation trial on a trademark registration means a person who has a direct and real interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark, as it is objectively obvious that the trademark might be damaged by being unable to use the trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark under an unlawful opposition against the trademark right to be revoked, or that it would be objectively affected by its legal status.

(b) The case holding that if there are circumstances under which a service mark similar to the registered trademark for seeking revocation was filed and a rejection ruling was rejected, it constitutes an interested person;

(c) The issue of whether an interested person is a party’s qualification is an ex officio examination.

[Reference Provisions]

(a) Article 45(1)1, Article 43(1)1, and Article 43(1)2(c) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 190); Articles 124 and 265 of the Civil Procedure Act

Reference Cases

A.C. Supreme Court Decision 92Hu162,179 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992,2668). Supreme Court Decision 88Hu1519 delivered on October 10, 1989 (Gong1989,1676) 88Hu1328 delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong190,535) 90Hu287 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991,1646). (b) Supreme Court Decision 88Hu158 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong198,912)

claimant-Appellant

Patent Attorney Kim Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant

Appellant-Appellee

Patent Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

original decision

On November 30, 1992, the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered 91 2, 3 (Consolidated), 4 (Consolidated) ruling

Text

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to Articles 45(1)1 and 43(1)1 and 43(2) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990), where a trademark right holder impliedly approves or uses a trademark identical or similar to his/her own trademark to be used by another person on goods identical or similar to the designated goods, the trademark registration shall be cancelled by a trial requested by an interested person. The "interested person" refers to a person who has a direct and real interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark, as it is objectively obvious that the trademark right to be cancelled is likely to be damaged by being unable to use the trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark, or to be affected by the legal status of the trademark, because it is objectively obvious that the trademark is identical or similar to the registered trademark, and it is likely that the trademark will be used by another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Hu1519, Oct. 10, 199; 8Hu1328, May 14, 1991).

However, according to the records, a claimant filed an application for a service mark recognized as similar to the registered trademark of this case on August 14, 1990 with a designated service business as a claimant, but filed an appeal after receiving a rejection ruling. At the time the appeal of this case was concluded, the circumstances that were pending in the appellate trial of this case, which were the designated goods of this case and the designated service business of claimant, are closely related to the handled goods as they belong to the same kind of goods. Considering the circumstances of the trade society, the similarity should be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1844 delivered on December 21, 1993; 93Hu155 delivered on December 21, 1993; 93Hu155 delivered on December 21, 1993).

In addition, the issue of whether a party constitutes an interested party is an ex officio matter as a matter of party qualification, and such circumstances should be determined by considering the above circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu162, 179 delivered on July 28, 1992).

However, the court below judged that a claimant does not constitute an interested party and did not proceed to the determination of the merits, and thus, it cannot be exempted from the reversal because the original decision cannot be found unlawful. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that it is unnecessary to determine the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is reversed, and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a trial and determination.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)

따름판례

- 대법원 1995. 11. 28. 선고 95후897 판결 [공1996.1.15.(2),232]

- 대법원 1998. 12. 22. 선고 97후3319 판결 [공1999.2.1.(75),239]

- 대법원 2001. 4. 24. 선고 2001후188 판결 [공2001.6.15.(132),1278]

관련문헌

- 정영환 상표등록취소심판청구에 있어서의 이해관계인 법조 49권 2호 (2000.02) / 법조협회 2000

- 이상경 특허·상표법상 심판청구인적격으로서의 이해관계인 인권과 정의 263호 / 대한변호사협회 1998

- 최성준 특허법원의 최근 중요판결 분석 , 1 특허소송연구 1집 / 특허법원 2000

- 최성준 특허법원의 최근 중요판결 분석 , 2 특허소송연구 1집 / 특허법원 2000

- 김태현 상표무효심판의 이해관계인과 상표사용의사 특허소송연구 4집 / 특허법원 2008

- 이재성 직무발명의 의의와 법적보호 , 1 지식재산21 75호 / 특허청 2002

- 임상민 불사용으로 인한 상표등록취소 심판에서의 이해관계인 법조 통권654호 / 법조협회 2011

- 이상경 특허법과 상표법상의 심판청구인 적격으로서의 이해관계인 지적재산권의 현재와 미래 : 소담 김명신선생 화갑기념논문집 / 법문사 2004

- 김연환 상표불사용취소심판제도 개선방안에 관한 소고 지식재산21 71호 / 특허청 2002

- 권택수 상표불사용으로 인한 등록취소심판에 있어서의 이해관계인 : 특히 심판청구인이 외국의 동종업자 또는 동일ㆍ유사상표권자인 경우 . 창작과 권리 34호 19호 (2000.06) / 세창출판사 2000

- 권택수 상표불사용으로 인한 등록취소심판에 있어서의 이해관계인 특허소송연구 2집 / 특허법원 2002

- 박정희 2003~2004년도 특허법원 상표 관련 판결 요약 특허소송연구 3집 / 특허법원 2005

- 최성준 특허법원의 최근 중요판결 분석 2, 상 창작과 권리 34호 17호 (99.12) / 세창출판사 1999

- 특허법원 특허재판실무편람 특허법원 2002

참조판례

- 대법원 1992.7.28. 선고 92후162,179 판결(공1992,2668)

- 대법원 1989.10.10. 선고 88후1519 판결(공1989,1676)

- 1990.1.25. 선고 88후1328 판결(공1990,535)

- 1991.5.14. 선고 90후2287 판결(공1991,1646)

- 대법원 1988.4.25. 선고 88후158 판결(공1988,912)

참조조문

- 상표법(구) 제45조 제1항 제1호

- 상표법(구) 제43조 제1항 제1호

- 상표법(구) 제43조 제1항 제2호

- 민사소송법 제124조 (위헌조문)

- 민사소송법 제265조

원심판결

- 특허청 1992.11.30. 자 91항당2,3(병합),4(병합) 심결