[2] The case holding that the trademark in actual use indicated on goods such as upon contact is not used as design or decoration, but as used for indicating the source of the goods, and is recognized as the use of trademark

[3] The meaning of "where the registered trademark is used for the designated goods" under Article 73 (1) 3 and (4) of the Trademark Act and the scope of its recognition

[4] The case holding that even though considering the circumstance that a trademark in actual use is in color of a green system identical with a registered trademark, it cannot be viewed as a trademark in the form that can be seen as identical to the registered trademark under social norms due to a difference in the shape and shape of a unit element, even though it is difficult to conclude that a trademark in actual use is a trademark in the form that a specific unit element is continuously arranged in the same direction and continuously arranged in the same direction, it cannot be viewed as a trademark in the same way as a registered trademark

1. On the first ground for appeal

A design and trademark are not in exclusive or selective relationship, and even if they are shapes or shapes that can be a design, if they can be seen as being used for indicating the source of another product which is the essential function of a trademark, they shall be deemed as being used as trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2743 delivered on December 26, 200).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the decision of the court below that the actual use trademark indicated on the goods such as the goods such as the design or decoration is not used as the design or decoration, but as it is used for indicating the source of the goods, and it is recognized as the use of a trademark, is not somewhat inappropriate in its reasoning, but it can be justified as a result, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the use of the trademark as otherwise alleged in

On the other hand, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to invoke the instant case as they differ from the instant case.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A person shall be appointed.

(Trademark of this case)

A. According to Article 73(1)3 and (4) of the Trademark Act, any trademark right holder, exclusive or non-exclusive licensee (hereinafter referred to as "trademark right holder, etc.") provides that a trademark registration shall be revoked by a trial if he/she fails to use the registered trademark for the designated goods in Korea without justifiable grounds for three consecutive years or more before the date a request for revocation is filed. Here, "where the registered trademark is used for the designated goods" means cases where the registered trademark is used for the designated goods, and "the same trademark" means cases where the registered trademark is used for the designated goods, and it includes not only the registered trademark itself but also the trademark in the form that can be seen as identical to the registered trademark under the transaction social norms, but also does not include cases where the similar trademark is used (see Supreme Court en banc Decision

나. 위 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 오른쪽 그림과 같은 도형으로 구성된 이 사건 등록상표(등록번호 제450731호, 지정상품 ‘비금속제 받침접시, 비금속제 접시, 비금속제 찻잔’ 등)의 통상사용권자인 주식회사 한미유나이티드는, 원형의 도형상표인 실사용상표(단, 원형의 도형 내부에 꽃이나 나비 등의 다른 문양이 합체되어 사회통념상 원형의 도형상표 자체로서의 동일성과 독립성이 상실된 표장은 제외됨)를 받침접시 등의 상품에 사용하였는바, 실사용상표를 이 사건 등록상표와 대비하여 보면, 실사용상표는 잎맥이 드러나는 세 갈래 잎 형상의 단위 구성요소 가 와 같이 동일한 방향으로 연속적으로 배열됨으로써 전체적으로 세 갈래 잎이 일렬로 연결되어 원형을 이루는 도형상표인 반면, 이 사건 등록상표는 잎맥이 보이지 않는 겹잎 또는 삼지창 형상의 단위 구성요소 가 와 같이 동일한 방향으로 연속적으로 배열됨으로써 전체적으로 야구공의 봉합선 모양 또는 겹잎이 일렬로 연결되어 원형을 이루는 도형상표로서, 양 상표는 단위 구성요소의 형상과 모양 및 전체적인 인상에서 현저한 차이가 있을 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 등록상표의 지정상품과 동일 또는 유사한 상품에 관하여 특정의 단위 구성요소가 연속적으로 배열된 원형의 도형을 공통으로 하면서 단위 구성요소의 형상과 모양만을 약간씩 변형한 도형상표가 다수 등록이 되어 있고, 특히 이 사건 등록상표의 상표권자인 원고는 실사용상표와 같은 세 갈래의 잎 형상을 단위 구성요소로 하는 원형의 도형상표에 대하여 이 사건 등록상표와 별개로 상표등록(등록번호 제40520호)을 받은 점에 비추어 볼 때, 실사용상표와 이 사건 등록상표가 단순히 특정의 단위 구성요소가 동일한 방향으로 연속적으로 배열된 원형의 도형상표라는 사정만으로는 서로 동일한 형태의 표장이라고 단정하기 어려우므로, 결국 실사용상표는 그 단위 구성요소의 형상과 모양의 차이 등으로 인하여 거래 사회통념상 이 사건 등록상표와 동일하게 볼 수 있는 형태의 상표라고 할 수 없다.

In addition, Article 91-2 (1) of the Trademark Act provides that the registered trademark under Article 73 (1) 3 includes trademarks similar to the registered trademark and deemed identical to the registered trademark if colors are the same as those of the registered trademark, and the trademark right holder, etc. uses another trademark only in colors with the registered trademark, and thus, it is deemed that the trademark identical to the registered trademark is used even in cases where the trademark right holder, etc. uses another trademark, as recognized by the court below, even if considering the circumstances that the used trademark is in color of the same green system as the registered trademark of this case,

C. Nevertheless, the court below decided to the effect that the actual use of the trademark used for the designated goods of the instant registered trademark constitutes a mark that can be seen as identical to the instant registered trademark on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the use of the registered trademark in the trademark cancellation system due to non-use, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be 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.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)