logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2001. 4. 27. 선고 2000후1740 판결
[등록무효(상)][공2001.6.15.(132),1290]
Main Issues

[1] The case holding that where the management of the garment Design Private Teaching Institutes is revoked among the designated services of the cited service mark and the decision on revocation becomes conclusive after the filing date of the registered service mark, the cited service mark on the management of the garment Design Private Teaching Institutes falls under the registered service mark registered by the earlier application under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, since the registration becomes conclusive after the final and conclusive

[2] Whether the designated service business of the registered service mark "business of a private teaching institute management" is similar to the "business of a private teaching institute management" of the designated service of the cited service mark (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

[1] The case holding that where the management of a garment Design Private Teaching Institutes is revoked among the designated services of the cited service mark and the decision on revocation becomes conclusive after the filing date of the registered service mark, the cited service mark on the operation of a garment Design Private Teaching Institutes falls under the registered service mark registered by an earlier application under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, since the registration becomes effective from the final date of the decision

[2] The term "design" refers to the process of selecting a variety of sculptures (type, color, material, structure, etc.) and specifically indicating a particular concept or work plan. In modern times, most of them are applied and used to industries, and thus, a design can be divided into an environmental design, visual delivery design, and product design (including a sort of design). Thus, the term "private teaching institute design management business" includes a private teaching institute management business related to clothing design. Accordingly, the term "designated service business of a registered service mark is similar to the designated service mark "private teaching institute management business of a private teaching institute" of the cited service mark.

[Reference Provisions]

[1] Articles 7(1)7 and 71(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997) / [2] Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997)

Reference Cases

[2] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu859 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1726) Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2842 delivered on November 23, 1999 (200Sang, 54)

Plaintiff, Appellant

Nau Design Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Yoon Sang-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant, Appellee

Defendant (Patent Attorney Kim Won-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Judgment of the lower court

Patent Court Decision 200Heo1535 delivered on July 20, 2000

Text

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the registration was revoked in a trial (93Da1043) on the revocation of registration for the reason that the business of a garment design private teaching institute was not used, among the designated services of the quoted service mark (registration No. 1 omitted), and that the revocation decision became final and conclusive on October 12, 1994, which was after the filing date of the instant registered service mark (registration No. 2 omitted) (registration No. 16, Sept. 16, 1994), among the designated services of the quoted service mark (registration No. 1 omitted), and determined that the cited service mark on the business of a garment Design Private Teaching Institute constitutes a registered service mark based on an earlier application under Article 7

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the records, the term "design" refers to the process of selecting a variety of sculptures (type, color, material, structure, etc.) and specifically indicating a specific concept or work plan. In modern times, most of the designs are applied and used to industries, and thus, they can be divided into environmental design, visual delivery design, product design (including class design), and then, the term "private teaching institute design management business" includes a private teaching institute management business for clothing design.

In this regard, the court below is justified in holding that the registered service mark of this case was similar to the "business of a Mod Design Private Teaching Institutes" of the registered service mark of this case (the original trial specified "art and design private teaching institute management business", which is the designated service business of the registered service mark of this case, merely as "design Private Teaching Institutes management business", but the "art and design private teaching institute management business" also as "business of a Mod Design Private Teaching Institutes management" of the cited service mark of this case, and it does not affect the conclusion. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)

arrow