[2] The scope of recognition of identical use of the combined trademark

[2] The term "use of the registered trademark" under Article 73 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act means the use of the trademark identical to the registered trademark, and the same trademark 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 transactional social norms, but also does not include the use of a similar trademark. In a case where the registered trademark is a combination of trademarks and the symbols, letters, or diagrams constituting each part of the combined trademarks constitute an essential part of the trademark, only one of them shall not be deemed a lawful use of the registered trademark.

1. On the first ground for appeal

An interested party in a request for the cancellation of trademark registration means a person who has a direct and realistic interest in the extinguishment of a trademark, inasmuch as the existence of the trademark registration to be cancelled is likely to be damaged by being unable to use the trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark due to the invalidation of the trademark registered by the owner of the trademark right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Hu78, 79, 80, Oct. 26, 1987; 90Hu287, May 14, 1991; 95Hu897, Nov. 28, 1995).

In light of the records, the court below is just in finding that a claimant used a trademark similar to the registered trademark of this case and received a request for cancellation of the trademark from the claimant, and judged that the claimant is an interested party in the request for cancellation of trademark registration of this case. There is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether an interest exists or not in the request for cancellation of trademark of this case, incomplete deliberation or lack of reasoning in the request for cancellation of trademark registration, and the ground of appeal that the claimant is a person infringing the registered trademark of this case and thus it cannot be an interested party

2. On the second ground for appeal

The term "use of the registered trademark" under Article 73 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act means the use of the trademark identical to the registered trademark, and the term "the same trademark" includes not only the registered trademark itself, but also the trademark in a form that can be deemed identical to the registered trademark in terms of trade social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Hu1834, Apr. 25, 1995). In a case where the registered trademark is a combined trademark and marks, letters, or diagrams constituting the combined trademark constitute the essential parts of each trademark, only one of them shall not be deemed to be a lawful use of the registered trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Hu117, May 28, 1985; 86Hu100, Mar. 24, 1987; 92Hu698, Dec. 22, 192).

According to the records, the registered trademark of this case is a combination trademark consisting of four parts of the English printing body and writing, Japanese writing, and Korean translation. Regarding the use of the registered trademark of this case, the non-exclusive licensee of the registered trademark of this case, the non-exclusive licensee of the non-exclusive licensee of the registered trademark of this case, the non-exclusive licensee of the non-exclusive licensee of the registered trademark of this case, used the mark / [1] in the product package of the designated trademark of this case. The registered trademark of this case is deemed to be a composition and the four parts of the registered trademark are all required. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the trademark of this case was used by the non-exclusive licensee of the registered trademark of this case on the ground that only the above letters

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimate use of a registered trademark or incomplete deliberation or lack of reasoning as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and the Supreme Court precedents cited in the ground of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked as different cases from this case. This part of the ground of appeal cannot

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)