(b) The effects of trademark rights, where the title of the book is registered as a trademark;

B. When the title of a book is registered as a trademark, if this word is used as the same title of the same book, it indicates the name or content of the said work as a creative production, and a person wishing to publish, produce and sell such creative production should use it unless it is contrary to the Copyright Act. Thus, this does not affect trademark rights because it has the same character as an ordinary name or an official trademark indicating quality under Article 51 of the Trademark Act.

2. All of the applications filed by the petitioner are dismissed.

3. Litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The applicant has published 11 books as shown in the separate sheet (hereinafter the book of this case) from October 30, 1987 to December 1990, while conducting the book publishing business with the trade name in the book publishing middle culture column (However, the name of the business registration is in the order of leapway other than the applicant who is the wife), and the respondent has published 11 books as shown in the separate sheet (hereinafter the book of this case) from October 30, 1987 to the above book with several revisions from October 1992 to the above book, and the respondent has issued 12 books with 12 books. On the other hand, on May 27, 1993, the applicant applied for the provisional disposition of this case as 052 books and 92-0540, which had been registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as trademark registration number No. 92-0540, which had been applied for the provisional disposition against the respondent for the prohibition of infringement of the trademark rights of this case and 194.

2. Whether to have the right to be preserved;

(a) Main cause of the petition;

The plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 9 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 9 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 9 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 9 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 9 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 9 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 9 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 9 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 9 were 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff.

In addition, whether the applicant employed the above Park Young-young and made the translation of the book of this case into the applicant, or because the applicant agreed to vest the copyright of the book of this case in accordance with the agreement of March 31, 1987, and that the translation copyright of this case is the applicant, there is no proof to acknowledge the translation of the book of this case under the direction and supervision of the applicant employed by the applicant, and even if the above agreement is deemed to have been completed as the applicant's assertion and the translation of the translation copyright belongs to the applicant, such agreement shall be deemed to be null and void since the copyright of this case shall belong to the author at the same time as the author's work and in particular, the author's moral right shall be exclusively attached to the author's personal correspondence (Article 14 (1) of the Copyright Act). Therefore, the above argument of the applicant is without merit.

If so, the applicant's primary application is without merit under the premise that the applicant has copyright to the books of this case in any form.

(b) Preliminary reasons for application;

The applicant is a preliminary reason for the applicant's registration of the title of this case as a trademark, and thus the respondent asserts that publishing the same title in the title of this case is an infringement of the applicant's trademark right. Accordingly, the applicant sought a prohibition of publishing the title of this case's book. Thus, the applicant's trademark registration of the title of this case's book has the same effect as the trademark of this case's ordinary name, even if the trademark right is registered under Article 51 of the Trademark Act, if the title of the title is used as a trademark of the same title, it does not extend to the trademark right in the case of the trademark of this case's use as a trademark of the title of the title of this case's title, and if the title of the title is registered as a trademark of the same title, it is used as the name or content of the title of the relevant work, and as long as it does not conflict with the Copyright Act, a person who intends to publish, manufacture, and sell such title shall use it. Therefore, the applicant's assertion that it does not affect the above applicant's trademark right.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the applicant's application for provisional disposition of this case constitutes a case where there is no prima facie proof of the right to be preserved and there is no reason therefor. Thus, the applicant's application of this case is revoked and all of the applications of this case are dismissed. It is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the provisional execution declaration as to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Park -Compliance (Presiding Judge) Lee Dong-won