[1] The case where the shape or shape which can be used as a design can be seen as having been used as a trademark

[2] In a case where Defendant B, the representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd., was indicted for violating the Trademark Act by importing goods using a pattern similar to the registered trademark of the UK C Co., Ltd., the injured party, from China for the purpose of sale, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, on the contrary of all circumstances, that Defendant A’s imported goods were used as trademarks to indicate the source of goods

[1] A design and trademark are not in an exclusive or selective relationship. Thus, even if the shape or pattern that can be a design is a shape or pattern, if it functions as a mark of origin of another product that is the essential function of the trademark, it shall be deemed that it was used as a trademark.

[2] In a case where Defendant B, the representative director of Defendant C, was indicted for violating the Trademark Act on charges of violating the Trademark Act on the ground that Defendant C imported the South Twitz using a pattern similar to the U.K.’s registered trademark, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the use of the trademark in light of all the circumstances, including the following: (a) Defendant C’s registered trademark was widely known as the source indication of C company on products such as clothes; (b) Defendant C’s registered trademark has unique design features in terms of color, number and arrangement order, etc.; (c) Defendant C was used in the form indicated on the surface or side of the products such as clothes, etc.; and (d) was used in the form indicated on the surface or side of the products such as clothes, and at the same time performing the function of displaying the company C’s source together; (b) Defendant C’s other marks are indicated on one product; (c) in consideration of the fact that two or more trademarks can be displayed on the product, the use of the trademark cannot be seen otherwise.

[1] Article 2(1)6 of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 1113, Dec. 2, 2011; see current Article 2(1)7); Article 66(1)1 of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 66(1)1, 93, and 97 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Do2743 Decided December 26, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 406) Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2535 Decided January 27, 2012

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 2011No1452 Decided September 16, 2011

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The act of using a mark identical or similar to another person's registered trademark as a trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the other person's registered trademark constitutes infringement on another person's trademark right, and on the other hand, even if a mark is used identical or similar to another person's registered trademark, if it is not intended to indicate the origin of goods and it is not recognizable as the use of another person's trademark, it shall not be deemed infringement on another person's trademark right. In such cases, whether the mark is used as a trademark shall be determined on the basis of whether the mark is used as a trademark identification mark in actual transaction, taking into account the relation between the mark and goods, the type of the use of the mark, such as the location or size indicated on the goods, etc., the well-known and well-knownness of the registered trademark

In addition, since designs and trademarks are not in an exclusive or selective relationship, even if they are shapes or shapes that can be a design, they shall be deemed to have been used as trademarks where they function as marks of origin of other products which are essential functions of trademarks (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2743 delivered on December 26, 200, etc.).

2. 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하면, 피해자 영국의 버버리 리미티드(이하 ‘피해자 회사’라고 한다)의 이 사건 등록상표(등록번호 생략)는 캐주얼셔츠, 넥타이, 원피스, 스카프와 같은 의류 등의 상품에 관하여 피해자 회사의 출처표시로서 널리 알려져 있는 점, 이 사건 등록상표는 격자무늬를 형성하는 선들의 색상 및 개수·배열순서 등에 의하여 수요자의 감각에 강하게 호소하는 독특한 디자인적 특징을 가지고 있고 주로 의류 등 상품의 표면 또는 이면의 상당 부분에 표시되는 형태로 사용되어 그 상품을 장식함과 동시에 피해자 회사의 출처도 함께 표시하는 기능을 수행하여 오고 있는 점, 피고인 1이 대표이사로 있는 피고인 2 주식회사가 중국에서 수입한 원심 판시 이 사건 남방셔츠는 이 사건 등록상표의 지정상품과 동일한 상품으로서, 이 사건 남방셔츠의 격자무늬는 이 사건 등록상표에 비하여 세로선의 폭이 가로선의 폭보다 약간 좁고 바탕색도 약간 옅지만 격자무늬를 형성하는 선들의 색상 및 개수·배열순서가 동일하여 전체적으로 보아 이 사건 등록상표와 매우 유사하고, 그 사용형태도 위에서 본 이 사건 등록상표의 주된 사용형태와 별로 다르지 아니한 점, 피고인 1은 이 사건 등록상표가 피해자 회사의 상품 출처표시로 사용되고 있음을 알면서도 위와 같이 이 사건 등록상표와 매우 유사한 격자무늬가 사용된 이 사건 남방셔츠를 판매목적으로 수입한 점 등을 알 수 있다.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the pattern of sYMBIOSE is deemed to have been used as a trademark to indicate the source of the product. On the other hand, although the mark “SYMBIOSE” is separately indicated in the Southern Titts, two or more trademarks may be indicated on one product, and considering the location, size, etc. of the mark “YMBIOSE”, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have been used only as a design.

3. Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the pattern of stimuls in the instant Southern Shirts was not used for indicating the origin of the product, but merely used as a design for the aesthetic effect. Such measures by the court below are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the use of trademarks, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. 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 Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)