Whether the right to claim cancellation of trade name in corporate register is a kind of the right to claim suspension of act under Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (affirmative)

In light of the fact that the trade name on the corporate register has the public disclosure function of the business entity, the fact that the trade name on the corporate register can secure the effectiveness of the prohibition of trade name use, and that it is easy to cancel the trade name, it is reasonable to authorize the right to claim the cancellation of the trade name as a kind of the right to claim the suspension of act under

Articles 2 and 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

Co., Ltd.

Dongjin Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Da42683 delivered on January 16, 1991

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which cited below, shall be revoked.

A. The defendant shall not sell electric and electronic equipment, home-to-doors, etc. with marks listed in the attached list No. 1 (a), (b), (d), and (e) attached thereto, attach the marks on the container or package of the above product, or display or distribute them on advertisements as to the above products.

B. The defendant fulfilled the procedure for the cancellation registration of the part of the "Dongjin-si" among the purpose of the defendant company's commercial registration (No. 47531) and the trade name registration of the change in the name of the defendant company that was received on March 26, 1990.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be three minutes, one of which shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall not sell electric and electronic equipment, home-to-door, etc. with marks listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached thereto, or attach a mark on the container or package of the above goods, or display or distribute the above mark on advertisements of the above goods.

The defendant shall cancel his corporate register (registration number 47531)'s mutual relief appearance.

The judgment that the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant (the plaintiff withdrawn part of the lawsuit in the trial).

1. From the point of view that there is no dispute over the establishment of the company Gap's 1, Gap's 2, Eul's 20-1, Eul's 20-1, Gap's 25 and 26-1, each of the above 2 (trademark registration certificate), Gap's 12 through 19-1, each of the above 2 (Account No. 2 (Account No. 3), Eul's 2 (Account No. 5), Eul's 21-1 to 51, Gap's 222, Gap's 23-1, Gap's 24-2, Gap's 7-18, Gap's 9-2, Gap's 7-1, Gap's 9-2, Gap's 9-1, Gap's 9-2, Gap's 9-1, Gap's 7-2, Gap's 9-2, Gap's 9-18, Gap's 24-10

According to the above facts of recognition, each mark listed in the trade name of the plaintiff company and the attached Form 2 list used by the plaintiff company is widely known in Korea. The marks listed in (a), (b), (d), (e) and (e) in the attached Table 1 list used by the defendant company and the trade name of the defendant company are similar trade names and marks that are likely to cause mistake and confusion to ordinary consumers in the transaction in preparation for comparison with the whole objective and overall observation of the trade name, mark, name, appearance and concept of the plaintiff company. Thus, the defendant company's use of marks listed in (a), (b), (d), (e) and (e) in the business name of the defendant company and in the attached Table 1 list in common with the plaintiff company constitutes an unfair competition act listed in Article 2 subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and the plaintiff company is likely to infringe on business interests due to the above unfair competition act of the defendant company.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated not to sell electric goods, electronic equipment, home-to-sto-sto-sto-sto-sto-sto-sto-sto-sto-sto-sto-s to-sto-s to-s to-e-s to-t-s to-s to-t-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s- to-s-s- to-s- to-s-s- to-s-s- to-s-s- to-s-s- tos-s.

The plaintiff also claims against the defendant for the prohibition of the use of the mark as specified in the attached Table 1 (c). However, there is no evidence that the defendant currently uses or is likely to use the mark as specified in the attached Table 1 (c). Therefore, this part of the claim is without merit.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of seeking the execution of the procedure for prohibition of use of the mark of the above recognition and the procedure for registration of cancellation of trade name, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair within the scope of this, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the defendant shall be ordered to order the prohibition of use of the mark of the above recognition and the execution of the procedure for registration of cancellation of trade name. The plaintiff's remaining appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89

Judges Yu Tae-tae (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung