E&D Partners Co., Ltd. (Patent Dan Law Firm et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

A. Shamamonte (Attorney Jeon-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

December 14, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on May 17, 201 on the case No. 2009Da3074 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The registered trademark of this case

(1) Registration number / filing date/registration date: Trademark registration (registration number 3 omitted) / October 15, 2007 / December 3, 2008

(2) Gu gender:

(c) Designated goods: as shown in the attached Form;

(b) Prior-use service marks;

(1) 구 성 : ‘ ’(이하 ‘선사용서비스표 1’이라 한다), ‘ ’(이하 ‘선사용서비스표 2’라 한다), ‘ ’(이하 ‘선사용서비스표 3’이라 한다), ‘ ’(이하 ‘선사용서비스표 4’라 한다), ‘わらわら’(이하 ‘선사용서비스표 5’라 한다)

(b) Service business: Main business; and

(c) Users: Defendant;

C. Details of the instant trial decision

On December 22, 2009, the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff that the instant registered trademark falls under either Article 7(1)11 and 12 of the Trademark Act, and Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act. The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial ruling accepting the instant registered trademark on May 17, 201, on the ground that the instant registered trademark does not fall under Articles 7(1)11 and 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act but falls under Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act and thus ought to be invalidated.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the grounds for illegality of the trial decision of the plaintiff's assertion

가. 상표법 제7조 제1항 제12호 에 있어서도 표장 유사여부 판단주체는 국내의 일반 수요자인데, 선사용서비스표 1, 2는 우리나라 외국어 보급 수준에 비추어 국내 수요자의 입장에서 볼 때 특별한 호칭이 없거나 ‘소소’ 부분에 의해 ‘소소’로 호칭되고 ‘웃다, 웃음’ 등으로 관념되며, ‘소소’ 부분이나 아래에 아주 작게 표시된 ‘わらわら’ 부분에 의해 일본어 발음 ‘와라와라’로 호칭된다고 볼 수 없으므로 선사용서비스표 1, 2는 이 사건 등록상표와 외관, 호칭, 관념이 상이하여 동일·유사하지 않다. 한편, 선사용서비스표 3 내지 5는 이 사건 등록상표 출원시까지 주점업에 제대로 사용되지 않았으므로 상표법 제7조 제1항 제12호 의 대상상표 적격이 없을 뿐만 아니라, 선사용서비스표 3, 5는 이 사건 등록상표와 동일·유사하지 않다.

B. In order to prove the degree of prior-use service mark known among the customers in Japan, most of the data submitted by the Defendant are the person requested by the Defendant (organization) or the preparation time is unclear for the use in the instant lawsuit by the Defendant. Thus, there is no objectivity and reliability in terms of the preparation subject, process, and content, and the evidence No. B No. 93 (Report on Report on Guidance of Agym brand in Japan) is not clear as to which the prior-use service mark was recognized to some extent among the customers in Japan at the time of the filing of the instant registered trademark.

C. In full view of the following: (a) there was no transaction or negotiation surrounding the instant registered trademark between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (b) the Plaintiff had independently formed business credit while running the instant registered trademark for a long time; (c) the details and scale of the development and publicity of brand including the instant registered trademark; (d) the instant registered trademark and prior-use service marks are similar to the instant registered trademark; and (e) the use of the designated goods was similar to the designated goods; and (c) the use of the designated goods thereof was not similar to the designated goods; and (d) the Plaintiff received the registration of the instant registered trademark in the process of independently accumulating business credit and growing awareness of the mark since the application for the instant registered trademark was filed in 201 and raising the recognition of the mark; and (d) the use of the instant registered trademark cannot be deemed to have obtained unfair benefits or losses to the Defendant by taking advantage of the business credit or customer attraction, etc., which was set by the Defendant through the use of the prior-use service mark. Thus, the instant registered trademark does not constitute an unlawful purpose.

3. Determination

A. Criteria for judgment

Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act provides that "a trademark which is identical or similar to a trademark recognized as indicating the goods of a particular person by domestic or foreign customers and which is used for unjust purposes, such as obtaining unjust profits or inflicting losses on the particular person" shall not be registered. In order to constitute "a trademark recognized as indicating the goods of a particular person by domestic or foreign consumers" under the above provision, it is sufficient that the perception that a particular person's trademark indicates the goods of a particular person exists among the consumers in the Republic of Korea or foreign countries, and it is sufficient that the trademark is recognized as indicating the goods of a particular person, and the trademark of a specific person is not necessary as well-known trademark because all or part of the consumers have such recognition. Whether there is an unjust purpose should be determined on the basis of the degree of recognition or creativity of a particular person's trademark at the time of application for trademark registration, the degree and contents of negotiations between a third person's trademark and a third person's trademark, the relationship between the two parties, whether a third person prepares for business using a specific person's trademark or not.

B. Whether the registered trademark of this case and the prior-use service mark 1 and 2 are similar to the registered trademark of this case

(1) Determination criteria

In principle, the similarity of a combined trademark consisting of two or more letters or diagrams shall be determined by the appearance, name, and concept arising from the entire constituent part of the trademark. However, in cases where it is deemed that a trademark can be placed only on the sole basis of an essential part, such as a combination of letters, etc., the similarity of a trademark may be determined by separating or extracting the essential part and by using a title or concept arising from the said part (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7352, Jan. 27, 201). In addition, in cases where it is possible to think that two or more names or concepts are identical or similar to another person’s trademark, if one of them is deemed identical or similar to another person’s trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2842, Nov. 23, 199).

(2) Specific determination

‘ ’(선사용서비스표 1), ‘ ’(선사용서비스표 2)는 한자 ‘소소’ 부분에 대한 국내 한자 발음에 의해 ‘소소’로 호칭될 수도 있지만, ① 위 선사용서비스표들의 ‘소소’ 부분 바로 하단에 히라가나로 ‘소소’의 일본식 발음인 ‘わらわら’가 병기되어 있는 점, ② 일본에서는 동일한 한자라도 발음이 달리 사용되는 경우가 있어 상표에 한자를 사용할 경우 그 한자의 발음을 나타내는 히라가나 또는 영문을 병기하는 예가 많고 그런 경우 그 상표에 대한 호칭은 병기된 히라가나 또는 영문의 음에 따르는 경우가 많은 점(을 제104, 105호증), ③ 국내에서 일본식 한자를 상호나 서비스표 등으로 사용하는 일식집 등의 경우에도 한자와 함께 그 한자의 발음을 나타내는 히라가나 등을 병기하는 경우가 많고 그런 경우 그 상호나 서비스표를 병기된 히라가나 등에 따라 호칭하는 경우가 적지 않은 점, ④ 일본어가 국내에 제2외국어로 널리 보급되어 고등학교 등에서 상당한 기간 동안 일본어 교육을 받은 소비자들이 상당수 있는 점, ⑤ 원고가 설문조사 기관인 (주)코리아리서치에 의뢰하여 2011. 9. 15.부터 같은 달 17.까지 국내에서 이루어진 설문조사 결과인 ‘상표 인식조사 결과 보고서’(갑 제14호증)의 기재에 의하면, 설문응답자의 33.4%가 일본어를 배운 경험이 있고, 일본어를 배운 경험이 있는 설문응답자의 평균 일본어 학습기간은 21.05개월에 이르는 점, ⑥ 히라가나는 일본어의 가장 기초로서 일본어를 처음 배우는 사람도 불과 며칠이면 히라가나와 그 발음을 익힐 수 있을 정도로 배우기가 용이한 점, ⑦ 일본은 우리나라와 지리적으로 매우 가까울 뿐만 아니라, 경제·문화적으로도 매우 많은 교류가 있는 국가인 점, ⑧ 히라가나를 아는 소비자라면 ‘わらわら’의 의미를 알지 못한다고 하더라도 이를 ‘와라와라’라고 호칭함에는 별다른 어려움이 없는 점, ⑨ 위 ‘상표 인식조사 결과 보고서’(갑 제14호증)의 기재에 의하면, 선사용서비스표 1을 어떻게 호칭할 것인지에 대해 ‘와라와라’라고 대답한 응답자가 6.4%로 가장 많아 ‘소소’라고 대답한 응답자 비율인 3.4%의 거의 2배에 이르는 점(79.2%는 ‘모름’으로 응답) 등을 종합하여 보면, 위 선사용서비스표들은 ‘소소’ 부분 하단에 병기되어 있는 히라가나 ‘わらわら’ 부분에 의해 ‘소소’의 일본식 발음인 ‘와라와라’로 호칭될 수도 있다 할 것이다.

As above, in cases where prior-use service 1 and 2 are named as “Ara”, the same name is also identical to the instant registered trademark hereinafter referred to as “Ara,” and if both marks are used in the same and similar goods and services, there may be misconceptions and confusions as to the source of goods. Thus, the instant registered trademark is similar to the prior-use service mark 1 and 2.

C. The degree of prior-use service mark 1 and 2 known in Japan

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are recognized in full view of each of the statements and arguments set forth in Section B 10, 11, 16, 18 through 40, 66 through 69, 71, 72, 74, 93, 98, 100 (including each of the numbers), and the whole purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in Section B.

(A) On May 23, 1983, 1998, 100 billion UN was established in Japan as a company established in the Republic of Korea on May 23, 198, 200, 1,000 of the first main shop in the 1998, 2002, 2,790 of the total store number of 1,000, 24,942 of the number of employees as of 2009, 24,942, 1,36.1 billion of sales, 1,618 of the total store number of 1,618 (including five overseas stores of Hong Kong and injury), and 1,000 of the Japanese main shop in the first place of Japan (No. 10).

(B) According to the order of the industry announced in the d unit case distribution newspaper, the Defendant was within 10th of sales based on each year from the food industry in Japan to the 2006 filing date of the instant registered trademark from 1998 to the date of the instant registered trademark application, and in particular, from 1998 to 2006, recorded sales 1th of sales in the main business sector, and from 2000 to 206, the Defendant stated the Defendant’s major store name in the sales order (No. 11 to 9th of the evidence).

(C) The Defendant’s store using prior-use service mark 1 and 2 (hereinafter “the Defendant’s store using prior-use service mark”) opened 23 or 97 stores from January 199 to December 1, 199, and 200. 417 stores were opened before October 15, 2007, which is the filing date of the instant registered trademark, until October 15, 2007 (No. 16,66,67), the number of seats per store is more than 100 square meters, and the number of employees per store is more than 30 to 95, and the number of employees is more than 30 to 95,00,000,000 won per store (No. 68 and 69), and the date of the instant registered service mark’s application (No. 16,667, 2075, 2075, 3075, 2007).

(D) The books “The Japanese Industrial Guidance in 201” and “the Japanese Industrial Guidance in 2010,” compiled by the Japanese Economic Newspapers Institute and published the Korean edition in the franchise publication company, are introduced as one of the representative stores of the Japanese main store industry in 2010 (No. 19-2).

(E) A prior-use service mark shop using a prior-use service mark 1 and 2 are running a business by using a signboard which is well-known in snow (No. 18, 72). A prior-use service mark 1 and 2 are running a business by using a mer new plate, sheet, food, beverage, water-related disease, water-related plastic bags, tetrack bags, pre-use service mark 1 and 2 (No. 20, 32, 72).

(F) On July 3, 200, a representative broadcasting company of Japan, broadcasted a prior-use service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based (No. 38-2), and on October 2, 2003, the prior-use service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based service mark-based (No. 39-2).

(g) Advertisement;

1) Whenever the Defendant opens a prior-use service mark 1 or 2, he distributed the leaflets on which the above prior-use service mark is indicated, and advertised them by inserting them by mail at each house (No. 33-1 or 153, No. 72-10, 21, 22, and 46). The Defendant printed the above prior-use service mark in Sket Schlage and advertised them by putting them in Pket Sket Schlage and distributing them (No. 34-1 or 112, No. 35-2, No. 35-1, 200, and 201).

2) From August 1, 2007 to August 31, 2007, the Defendant advertised TV of each prior-use service mark through the "TBS" and "TBS" and the "TBS" in the land between Japan and through the secretary, in the city where the secretary is in his jurisdiction, through the "Skid Area," and through the "Skid Area," in the "Skid Area", through the "Skid Area," the Defendant advertised TV of the store using each prior-use service mark (No. 36 evidence 1 to 3).

3) The Defendant distributed the pre-use service mark using the pre-use service mark across the country, and published the job offer advertisement in the magazines in which the number of copies published is not less than 420,000, at each shop opening point (No. 37-1 to 14, No. 71-5).

4) The Defendant continues to use large amount of advertising expenses for a shop using a prior-use service mark, including advertising expenses, for one year from April 2006 to March 2, 2007, from April 2006 to March 2007, the date of filing of the instant registered trademark (referring to KRW 4 billion when calculating at the exchange rate (1,507.97 won) as at the date of closing the argument of the instant case).

(h) Relevant articles

1) On the magazine, which is a comprehensive economic area published in December 2002, a newspaper, a “monthly re-resident”, published a newspaper with one representative director of the Defendant, who is the first business of the Japanese main business in the Japanese main business, was published. In that article, there is no place where the signboards of the interestcar chain store at the cryp of the calendar or the cryp of the cryp, in the cryp of the calendar or the cypian. There is no place where the signboards of the interestcar chain store are visible at the cryp of the calendar or the cryp of the Korean main business (No. 40 evidence No. 1) annually.

2) 1999. 2. 11.자 닛케이 유통신문에는 ‘몬테로자는 신업태의 펍 이자카야 ’소소(わらわら)‘의 전개를 시작했다’는 기사가(을 제40호증의 2), 닛케이레스토랑 1999. 5월호에서는 ‘몬테로자 … 금년 초에는 펍풍의 침착한 내장이 특징인 이자카야 ’소소(わらわら)‘를 개발하는 등 복합전개를 연마하고 있다’는 기사가(을 제40호증의 6), 2001. 5. 3.자 닛케이 유통신문에는 ‘이자카야 어민, 소소 등 신규 카테고리의 적극적 출점을 계속한 몬테로자는 9위로 부상하였다’는 기사가(을 제40호증의 3), 일본 RESONA 은행이 발행한 아시아뉴스 2005. 12. 13.자에는 ‘홍콩에 진출한 일본계 외식산업에 관한 기사에서 2004. 11. 홍콩에 선사용서비스표 사용 점포가 오픈하였다’는 기사가(을 제40호증의 5) 각 게재되었다.

(i) According to the questionnaire survey report (No. 93 evidence) that was conducted in Japan by the Defendant’s survey agency at around November 201, 201 by requesting 35.5% of the respondent’s prior-use service marks to Korea, the Defendant responded that 95.9% of the respondent’s prior-use service marks are known, and that 10.1% of the respondent’s prior-use service marks were out of the first place, and that 35.5% of the respondent’s prior-use service marks were out of the first place, and that 9.8% of the respondent’s prior-use service marks did not first respond to the Plaintiff’s answer that 9.1% of the respondent’s prior-use service marks were out of the first place, and that 9.5% of the respondent’s prior-use service marks were out of the first place, and that 91.8% of the respondent’s response to the investigation that he was aware of the prior-use service marks was out of 807 answer.

(2) In light of the above facts, the Defendant Company’s history and size, the number and size of stores with prior-use service mark 1 and 2, and the sales volume of stores with prior-use service mark 1 and 2, the number and contents of advertisements on the main points using the prior-use service mark 1 and 2, and the result of the survey of “the survey report on brand guidance that ought to be seen as the interest of a day” as a whole, it shall be deemed that the prior-use service mark 1 and 2 had already been recognized as indicating a specific person’s service among Japanese consumers as of October 15, 207, which is the filing date of the instant registered trademark.

D. Whether an unlawful purpose is unjust

앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 등록상표 출원일 당시 선사용서비스표 1, 2에 대한 일본 수요자들의 인식도가 상당히 높았던 점, ‘와라와라’로 호칭되는 ’소소‘ 내지 ’わらわら‘는 원래 일본어에 없는 단어인데 선사용서비스표 1, 2는 ’わらう(와라우)‘로 훈독되는 한자 ’소‘를 두 번 연달아 쓰고 이것이 ’わらわら(와라와라)‘로 읽혀지도록 ’소소‘ 바로 밑에 ’わらわら‘를 병기하여 만든 조어상표로서 창작성의 정도가 높은 점, 위 선사용서비스표들과 이 사건 등록상표는 모두 동일하게 ’와라와라‘로 호칭될 수 있어 양 표장의 유사성의 정도가 높은 점, 원고의 대표이사인 소외인은 2002. 10. 창작요리주점 ’소소‘를 오픈하여 영업하였는데(을 제47호증) 이러한 ’소소‘는 선사용서비스표 1, 2의 한자 ’소소‘의 한글음역과 동일하고, 소외인은 월간 〈창업＆프랜차이즈〉와의 2003. 12. 11.자 인터뷰에서 “두 번 웃는 주점이라는 의미로 ’소소‘라고 이름 붙였다”고 하여 위 ’소소‘의 의미가 한자 ’소(웃을 소)‘를 두 번 쓴 선사용서비스표 1, 2와 동일한 점(을 제50호증의 1), 원고는 2003. 12.부터 위 주점명 ’소소‘를 선사용서비스표 1, 2의 일본어 호칭과 동일한 ’와라와라‘, ’WARAWARA'로 변경하여 사용하기 시작한 점(을 제47호증), 소외인은 이데일리 2009. 10. 8.자 인터뷰기사에서 “일본 선술집만큼은 자신보다 많이 가본 사람이 드물 것이다. 2000년부터 약 5년간 창업 컨설팅을 위한 벤치마킹투어를 기획해 창업자들과 일본을 방문하여 전문적으로 돌아본 것만 한 해 50군데 이상이었다”라고 하였던 점(을 제48호증), 소외인이 이 사건 등록상표의 출원 전에 쓴 ‘화장실 마케팅 시대’라는 글에는 “몬테로자의 최근 브랜드인 〈와라와라〉의 화장실에서 진정으로 고객을 위한 필사적인 마케팅을 목격한 적이 있었다”고 기재되어 있는 점(을 제49호증의 1, 2), 소외인은 2001. 9. 5. 일본음식점경영업 등을 지정서비스업으로 하여 선사용서비스표 1, 2의 한자 ’소소‘ 및 한글 ’와라와라‘를 병기한 서비스표 ’ ‘를 출원하였다가 거절결정된 점(을 제53호증의 1), 원고가 선사용서비스표 1, 2의 호칭과 동일한 호칭의 ’와라와라‘ 및 ’WARAWARA' 등을 사용하여 운영하는 주점의 실내 분위기와 인테리어, 영업방식 등이 선사용서비스표 사용 주점과 유사한 부분이 많은 점(을 제54 내지 58호증), 원고는 선사용서비스표 1, 2의 사용서비스업인 주점업과 동일한 서비스업을 운영하고 있고, 이 사건 등록상표의 지정상품들은 주점에서 안주로 제공되거나 별도로 판매되기도 하는 것으로서 선사용서비스표 1, 2의 사용서비스업과 이 사건 등록상표의 지정상품은 유사하거나 경제적 견련관계가 있는 점, 실제로 소비자들 사이에 원고가 운영하는 주점과 선사용서비스표 사용 주점 간에 출처의 오인·혼동이 일어나고 있는 점(을 제45, 63호증), 소외인은 선사용서비스표 1, 2 외에도 타 일본 서비스표를 모방한 ‘대길’, ‘천하일품’, ‘KEN'S DINING' 등의 브랜드를 사용하였던 점(을 제59 내지 61호증) 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 등록상표의 출원인인 원고는 선사용서비스표 1, 2에 화체된 피고의 영업상의 신용이나 고객흡인력 등에 편승하여 부당한 이득을 얻으려는 부정한 목적으로 이 사건 등록상표를 출원하였다고 할 것이다.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the registered trademark of this case is similar to the prior-use service mark 1 and 2, which is recognized as indicating the goods of a specific person by Japanese customers, and is used for unlawful purposes, so its registration shall be invalidated as it falls under Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of this case is legitimate in conclusion, and the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)

Impossibility of signing and sealing due to the leave of absence;