(a) Validity of registration for renewal of trademark rights which is not by a legitimate trademark right holder;

B. Whether the judgement was not made on the defense that does not conflict with the contents of the quoted judgment, and whether the judgment was unlawful

(a) Even if the renewal of trademark right registration is not by a legitimate right holder, it shall be valid unless it is invalidated by a trial;

B. In order to file a claim that there was an error of omission of judgment in the original judgment citing the plaintiff's claim against the defense, it shall be possible only when the defense conflicts with the contents of the quoted judgment, and if not, it shall not be deemed that there was an error of omission of judgment even though the decision was not rendered.

Article 47 of the Trademark Act, Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

빌헤름쉼멜피아노 포르테 후브리그 소송대리인 변호사 이병호

Defendant 1, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1685 delivered on March 2, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the defendant's attorney (including the defendant's additional grounds of appeal) are examined.

1. The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff's trademark right has been transferred to the non-party Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation No. 1. The records examined the above fact-finding process of the court below, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence and there is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the transfer of trademark right, and therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal No.

2. The court below rejected the defendant's defense as stated in its holding, and it cannot find any illegality in the above measure of the court below, and the defendant's additional ground of appeal No. 3 (A) is groundless from the contrary point of view.

3. The court below held that, as shown in the above reasoning, the registration of the plaintiff's trademark was transferred to the company name of the above lawsuit against the plaintiff's will and again transferred to the defendant's name, so long as the defendant who is the registered titleholder has renewed the registration, the registration itself shall not be valid unless the defendant has renewed the registration, and the registration of renewal shall be valid without complying with other points in the case where the registration was not invalidated by a trial pursuant to Article 47 of the Trademark Act. Therefore, the court below's decision that the registration of renewal is valid as a result of the conclusion with the party member is just and there is no reason to discuss the above registration in the opposite position, and there is no legal reasoning as to the lack of reasons and the registration of renewal of trademark rights, or any other legal principle as to the registration of renewal of trademark rights, and there is no ground of appeal No. 2-B of the defendant's ground of appeal No. 3, and

4. If there is an error of incomplete determination of the defense, etc. in the wrong cited judgment, it is intended to make a case where the above defense would be contrary to the contents of the cited judgment, and it cannot be said that there is any ploss since it did not make any decision, and it does not conflict with the contents of the cited judgment. Thus, the argument that the final judgment between the parties and the other parties effective in this case does not conflict with the contents of the cited judgment of the court below. Thus, it cannot be said that there was a plossy in the judgment because the judgment did not have been made, and therefore, the defendant's additional ground for

Therefore, all of the arguments are without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)