[1] Requirements for the type of goods to constitute "a mark indicating another person's goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that there exists a differentiated feature of the other goods in the form of the above advanced cleaning machine in light of the actual condition of domestic importation and sale in the shape of the original form or the shape of the biffed shape after separating the container from the main form and the biffed shape after separating the container from the main body of the container, and it is difficult to recognize that the biffed shape is widely recognized in Korea as a mark indicating that the goods of a specific company, and in light of the shape of the original form or the shape of the biffed shape, which is the products of another foreign company, the goods of the other foreign company, there is no discriminatory feature of the other goods

[1] The form of a product is allowed to be reproduced and produced as a matter of principle unless it is protected by a design right or patent right. However, the form of a product is exceptionally subject to protection under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act because it constitutes a "mark indicating that the product is a product of another person" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, only if the form of the product is considerably individualized to the extent that it is a product of a specific source with a specific quality among traders or consumers by continuous, exclusive, or continuous publicity advertisement for a long time.

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that there exists a differentiated feature of the other goods in the form of the above advanced cleaning machine in light of the overall form of the original form or the shape of the bold shape, which is the whole shape of the container, separated from the main body of the container, and the shape of the color after separation of the container from the container, as a mark indicating that the goods of a specific company are goods of a specific company, and in light of the actual condition of the original form or the shape of the bold shape, which is the products of another foreign company, imported and sold in Korea, it is difficult to view that there is a differentiated feature of the other goods in the form of the above advanced cleaning machine

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 96Ma365 delivered on November 26, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 147), Supreme Court Order 96Ma365 delivered on November 27, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 72), April 24, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 151), Supreme Court Order 99Do691 delivered on September 14, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 2287)

A.M. A.M.

주식회사 로얄퀸클럽인터내셔날 외 1인 (소송대리인 법무법인 바른법률 담당변호사 홍지욱)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na47664 delivered on June 13, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the obligee.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds for appeal Nos. 1 to 3 and 8

As a matter of principle, the form of a product shall be allowed to be reproduced and produced unless it is protected by a design right or patent right. However, exceptionally, the discriminatory feature of a product by continuous, exclusive, or continuous advertising advertising is considerably distinguishable from that of a certain source with a specific quality to the extent that it can be inferred that the product is a product with a specific quality for customers or users. In such a case, only because it constitutes "a mark indicating other person's product" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, it can be protected under the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2295, Nov. 26, 1996; 96Ma365, Nov. 27, 1996; 96Ma675, Apr. 24, 1997; 96Ma675, Apr. 24, 1997).

The court below rejected the creditor's assertion as to whether or not the shape of the original form or the shape of the container for the first time after separating the container from the whole shape of the original form or the shape of the container for the first time after the creditor's goods and whether or not the shape of the container for the first time after separation of the container for the first time is widely recognized domestically as a mark indicating the creditor's goods. The creditor's assertion was rejected without any evidence to acknowledge it. The result of the creditor's fact-finding survey on the advanced cleaning machine of this case's advertising and sale time, the currency and actual purchase records for reservation, the creditor's request to MBV Co., Ltd. for the approval of the creditor's goods, is insufficient to recognize that the form of the advanced cleaning machine of this case is widely recognized domestically as a mark indicating the creditor's goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the legal principles as to the fact-finding of the original form or the shape of the container for the first time, it is difficult to view that there is no other form of goods in violation of the rules of evidence or evidence.

2. On the fourth and fifth grounds for appeal

기록에 의하면, 채무자 로얄퀸클럽이 채권자와의 판매대리점계약이 종료된 후 일시적으로 채무자들의 사무실 입구에 "Majestic Filter Queen"이라는 채권자의 상표를 그대로 기재하고 채무자들의 사무실 옥외 건물에는 "머제스틱"이라는 신청인의 상표를 게재한 입간판을 설치하였을 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 진공청소기의 상징인 필터 콘(filter cone)을 의인화한 채권자의 캐릭터 등을 게재한 사실은 알 수 있으나, 이는 채무자 로얄퀸클럽이 채권자와 판매대리점계약 종료 후에 판매하고 남은 이 사건 진공청소기의 재고상품의 판매를 위한 것이라고 보여지므로 이를 채무자들이 채권자의 상품을 사칭하였다고 볼 수 없다고 할 것인바, 같은 취지의 원심의 사실인정과 판단도 모두 정당한 것으로 수긍할 수 있다. 그리고 당사자의 변론재개신청을 받아들이느냐의 여부는 법원의 재량에 속한 사항이므로 당사자가 입증할 기회가 충분히 있었음에도 변론종결 후 추가입증을 위하여 변론재개신청을 한 경우에 법원이 그 변론재개신청을 받아들이지 아니하였다 하여 이를 심리미진의 위법사유에 해당한다고 할 수는 없다(대법원 1987. 12. 8. 선고 86다카1230 판결 참조).

Ultimately, this part of the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in matters of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles due to insufficient deliberation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. On the sixth ground for appeal

원심은, 채권자가 이 사건 진공청소기의 구조 및 성능에 관한 보고서나 제품의 설명 및 시연을 위한 자료들을 채무자 로얄퀸클럽에게 제공하였다 하더라도 위 보고서 및 자료들이 독립된 경제적 가치를 가지는 것으로서 상당한 노력에 의하여 비밀로 유지·관리되었음을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없다 하여 위 자료들이 영업비밀에 해당함을 전제로 한 채권자의 영업비밀침해주장을 배척하였는바, 기록에 비추어 살펴보면 원심의 위와 같은 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유로 주장하는 바와 같은 심리미진이나 법리오해의 위법이 없다.

4. On the seventh ground for appeal

원심은, 채권자가 채무자 로얄퀸클럽에게 제공하였다고 주장하는 광고전단, 카탈로그 및 제품사용설명서 등과 채무자 로얄퀸클럽이 자신의 제품을 판매하면서 제작한 광고전단 등과 사이에 실질적 유사성이 없다고 하여 저작권침해주장을 배척하였는바, 기록에 비추어 살펴보면 원심의 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유로 주장하는 바와 같은 심리미진이나 사실오인의 위법이 없다.

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing creditor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)