[2] Requirements for the product type to constitute "a mark indicating others' goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[2] The form of a product is allowed to be copied and produced in principle unless it is protected by a design right or patent right, etc., and exceptionally, it constitutes "a mark indicating other person's goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act only where the differentiated feature of a product is considerably individual to the extent that it is the product of a specific source with a specific quality among traders or consumers by continuous, exclusive, or continuous publicity advertisement for a long time, etc. (the case holding that a design used on the surface of a stable hole by a stock company is not subject to protection under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act because it does not correspond to the product mark widely known in Korea).

Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act does not require that the meaning of "domestic wide recognition" is widely known to all persons discharged from active service, but it is sufficient to the extent known among traders or consumers within a certain local area (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 74Da1989, Feb. 10, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 80Da829, Dec. 9, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 94Do399, Jul. 14, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 94Do396, Jul. 16, 199). Meanwhile, the type of a product is allowed to imitate it in principle unless it is protected by a design right or patent right, etc., and it is exceptionally permitted to manufacture it, but it falls under the category of a product that has a specific quality of products by continuous, exclusive or continuous use for a long time, or advertisement to the extent that it can be declared as 196Da19694, Feb. 296, 1996.

The court below rejected the decision of the court below in light of the above legal principles and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the respondent's assertion that there is no possibility of confusion between the applicant's act and the act of causing confusion between the applicant's act and the act of causing confusion between the applicant's act and the act of causing confusion between the applicant's act of using the same design as the design of this case as the design of this case and the design of the design of the attached drawing No. 2 of the order of the court below (hereinafter referred to as the "design of this case") as the product mark of the improvement corporation which the reorganization company's improvement factory (hereinafter referred to as the "convenor") used on the surface of the stable factory.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)