In a case where the buyer does not confuse the source at the time of the sale of goods but it is likely that the buyer takes over the goods from the buyer or sells the goods to the buyer from the perspective of ordinary consumers, such as this third party, etc., whether the act of using such goods or selling the goods using the goods mark constitutes “an act of causing confusion with another person’s goods” under Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (affirmative)

Even if the purchaser at the time does not confuse the origin of a product due to specific circumstances at the time of sale, such as the quality and price of the product, place of sale, method of sale, advertisement, etc., if there is a possibility of confusion as to the origin of the product from the perspective of ordinary consumers, such as the acquisition by the purchaser of the product from the purchaser or confusion as to the origin of the product because the product mark attached to the product by the third party is likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the product, etc., the act of using such product mark or selling the product using the product mark constitutes “act of causing confusion as to another person’s product” as prescribed in Articles 2 subparag. 1(a)

Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) and Article 18 (3) 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 2010No3885 Decided May 19, 2011

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act”) includes not only the act of causing confusion as to the origin of a product but also the act of causing confusion as to the source of the product. Whether the act constitutes such act should be determined by taking into account the degree of recognition and distinctiveness of the product mark, degree of similarity, mode of use, similarity of marks, existence of competitive and competitive relations due to the similarity of the product and the overlapping of customer stories, and existence of bad faith (use), etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8459, Apr. 27, 2007). Thus, even if at the time of sale due to specific circumstances at the time of sale, such as quality and price of the product, place of sale, method of sale, advertisement, etc., if the purchaser takes over the product from the purchaser or the third party is likely to cause confusion as to the source of the product attached to the product, and if the act of using the product is likely to cause confusion as to cause confusion with the product's.

원심과 제1심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인이 판매한 이 사건 모조품 가방에는 피해자 공소외인의 상품표지 “ ”와 거의 동일한 표장이 부착되어 있는 점, 피해자도 위와 같은 상품표지를 가방이나 핸드백 등에 사용하여 온 점, 피고인 스스로 그의 인터넷 쇼핑몰에 “이번에 야심차게 준비한 신상 비비안웨스트우* 디자인의 숄더백이야.”라고 상품 설명을 기재하는 등 피고인도 이 사건 모조품 가방이 피해자 상품의 모조품임을 알고 있었던 점 등을 알 수 있다. 이러한 사정을 위와 같은 법리에 비추어 보면, 비록 원심판결에서 설시한 사정 때문에 피고인으로부터 이 사건 모조품 가방을 구매한 구매자들은 그 출처를 혼동할 우려가 없다고 하더라도, 구매자로부터 이 사건 모조품 가방을 양수하거나 구매자가 지니고 있는 이 사건 모조품 가방을 본 제3자가 그 출처를 혼동할 우려가 있는 등 일반 소비자의 관점에서는 그 출처를 혼동할 우려가 있으므로, 피고인이 이 사건 모조품 가방을 판매한 것은 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제1호 (가)목 소정의 ‘타인의 상품과 혼동하게 하는 행위’에 해당한다.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "an act of causing confusion with another person's goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the buyer is not likely to cause confusion with the origin of the goods, and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower 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 Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)