[1] The type of the product constitutes "a mark indicating other person's goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[2] Requirements to constitute a "goods used exclusively for the production of a patented product" in indirect infringement of a patent right

[3] The case holding that the rash mileage, which is a part of the rash for use in the rashers, constitutes "goods used exclusively for the production of patented goods"

[1] Generally, the form of a product does not have the function of indicating the origin of the product, but it does not have the function of expressing the origin of the product. However, in a case where the characteristic of a product continues to be used continuously, exclusively or exclusively for a long time, or its form is individualized to the extent that it can be inferred that it is the product of a specific quality among traders or users, it has the function of distinguishing the product from the other product, and only in such a case, it constitutes the "mark indicating that it is another person's product" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

[2] Even if a part of the expendable part that can be frequently replaced because the subject matter of the patented invention or a thing related thereto is worn out or dried, it constitutes an essential element of the patented invention and is not used for any other purpose, and is generally difficult to be widely claimed, and if such replacement has already been planned at the time of purchasing an article related to the patented invention and such part is separately manufactured and sold by the patentee, such article constitutes "goods used exclusively for the production of a patented product" as referred to in an indirect infringement of the patent right.

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that it does not constitute an infringement of a patent right on the ground that the Rabbage, which is a part of the raber's lab, constitutes "goods used exclusively for the production of patented goods" on the grounds stated in the above / [2], since it is not included in the concept of "production" as referred to in the indirect infringement

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [2] Article 127 subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act / [3] Article 127 subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1947 delivered on December 2, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 526)

Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Yellow-man et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Respondent 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Order 95Ra135 dated February 22, 1996

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

First of all, the grounds for reappeal are examined.

Generally, even though the form of a product does not have the function of expressing the origin of the product, if the form of the product has been used continuously, exclusively, or continuously for a long time, or if the differentiated feature of the product has been individualized to the extent that it can be understood as the product of a specific quality among traders or users, it has the function of distinguishing the product from the other product, and only in such a case, it constitutes "a mark indicating other person's product" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1947 delivered on December 2, 1994).

Examining the reasoning of the order of the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision is just in holding that it cannot be recognized that the applicant's earth and sand set in this case's production obtained recognition as an individual mark as the source of goods to the extent that it can be perceived as an individual mark, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unfair competition acts as pointed out in the grounds for reappeal

Furthermore, the first and second grounds for re-appeal are examined together.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, Paragraph 1 of this case, which is the applicant's main patent (registration number omitted) and the applicant's 0-day printing and selling of the 10-day printing and selling of the 3-day printing and selling of the 1-day printing and selling of the 5-day printing and selling of the 0-day printing and selling of the 0-day printing and selling of the 1-day printing and selling of the 0-day printing and selling of the 1-day printing and selling of the 0-day printing and selling of the 1-day printing and selling of the 0-day printing and selling of the 1-day printing and selling of the 0-day printing and selling of the 1-day printing and selling of the 0-day printing and selling of the 1-day printing and selling of the 0-day printing and selling of the 1-day printing and selling of the 0-day manufacturing and selling of the 1- enterprisers manufacturing and selling of the 1-month products.

However, even if a part of a expendable part, which is to frequently replace the subject matter of a patented invention or a thing related thereto, is an essential element of a patented invention, and is not used for any other purpose, and cannot be widely claimed, if such replacement has already been planned at the time of purchasing an article related to the invention, and if such part is separately manufactured and sold by the patentee, such article constitutes an article used only for the production of a patented product as referred to in an indirect infringement of a patent right.

Therefore, according to the records, the number of racers themselves can be used efficiently on the basis of the printing paper in racers, approximately 300,00, and about 15,000, and about 50,000, and about 15,000, and about 50,000, among them, the racers should be replaced with new ones. In this case, the patented invention contains separate racers, so that the racers themselves can be used efficiently on the basis of the printing paper, and the racers' own name can be used for the economic purpose, and the racers' name can not be used for the exchange or handling of the racers' name, and the Kacers' name can not be easily used for the purpose of the Kacers' use of the Kacers' invention, and the Kacers' name and other essential elements can not be easily used for the purpose of the Kacers' use of the Kacers' invention.

Nevertheless, the court below did not include the concept of "production" in the above indirect infringement on the ground that the above earth set store was merely the intended expendable goods required for the "use of the patent base", and therefore, the decision of the court below that the manufacture and sale of the earth set of this case by the respondent did not infringe the applicant's patent right should have affected the result of the decision of this case by misunderstanding the legal principles of the above "production". Thus, the grounds for re-appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)