beta
(영문) 대법원 1998. 3. 27. 선고 97후1115 판결

[상표등록취소][공1998.5.1.(57),1203]

Main Issues

Interested parties to a request for cancellation of trademark registration under Article 73 (6) of the Trademark Act

Summary of Judgment

In an application for cancellation of a trademark registration, an interested person means a person who has a direct and realistic interest in the extinguishment because the existence of the trademark registration to be cancelled is against the trademark right holder and is unable to use the trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark and thereby is likely to be damaged.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 73(1) and (6) of the Trademark Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 88Hu1519 Decided October 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 1676) Supreme Court Decision 95Hu897 Decided November 28, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 232), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1555 Decided April 26, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1731), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2326 Decided October 24, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3650)

claimant, Appellant

dzz dzzz dzz (Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Appellant, Appellee, Appellee

ASEAN Hingma Co., Ltd.

Judgment of the court below

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94 No. 333 dated February 28, 1997

Text

The decision of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

Reasons

The ground of appeal by the claimant is examined.

In a request for cancellation of trademark registration, an interested person means a person who has a direct and real 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 with or similar to the registered trademark by being contested by the owner of the trademark right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Hu2326, Oct. 24, 1997; 88Hu1519, Oct. 10, 1989).

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the registered trademark of this case (application No. 23, Nov. 23, 1987, trademark registration number omitted) is designated as goods of the kind No. 45, and that the claimant does not use a trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark of this case for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark of this case, not for a person engaged in the designated goods of this case, but for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the registered trademark of this case. It is not known whether the non-party corporation, which was permitted by the claimant to use the character trademark of this case, such as U.S., was permitted to use the trademark of this case, and even if the right to use the trademark of this case was permitted by the claimant, it cannot be recognized as valid because the claimant did not register the establishment of the right to use the trademark of this case, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an interested party who can request the revocation trial of this case, and therefore, it cannot be exempted.

However, according to the records, the claimant produced cartoons, film, and book created by Walt Dy's character in 1966 as the main character, which is the character created by Walt Dy's character, and distributed it to the whole world by producing and distributing the cartoons, film, and book with the main character, while developing commercialization or commercialization business using the above character to the whole world, with the permission of the claimant's right to use the above character from around 1974 to Oct. 10, 198, the claimant used the above character on the non-party 1's character such as a new character, clothes, fruit, phrases, etc. to the effect that the above character was used by the non-party 1 company from around 197 to the non-party 1 company's own name, gold bullion, children's character with the sign of license to use the sign of the sign of Mady's character, etc. to the non-party 1 company's character with the sign of license to use the sign of Mady's character.

In addition, the permission of the character is made by the agreement of the Parties with the intention of the Parties, and there is no ground to regard its validity only when the registration of the establishment of the right of use is required.

Therefore, the claimant not only runs the business identical to the designated goods of the registered trademark of this case through the non-party company, but also uses a mark similar to the registered trademark of this case, and thus has direct and practical interests in the extinguishment of the registered trademark of this case. Thus, the court below should have judged whether the registered trademark of this case was revoked as alleged by the claimant, and the court below rejected the claim of this case on the ground that the claimant is not an interested party. Thus, the decision of the court below contains an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interested party of the trademark cancellation trial, or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the decision

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Patent Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)

본문참조조문