Whether the application of Articles 2 and 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is excluded in cases of another person's unregistered trademark whose registration is widely recognized in the Republic of Korea.

Where the registration of a trademark is not aimed at distinguishing the goods of another person from the goods of another person, but it is merely an acquisition of a trademark in the form of obtaining profits by causing confusion with another person's trademark or causing confusion with another person's business facilities or activities by using the same or similar trademark, trade name, mark, etc. with the knowledge that the trademark of another person widely used in the Republic of Korea has not yet been registered, the application for registration of the trademark itself for the purpose of unfair competition is the abuse or abuse of the trademark law, and it cannot be seen as a legitimate exercise of rights under the Trademark Act. Thus, the application of Articles 2 and 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act shall not be excluded.

Articles 2 and 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

Now, the receiver of third-income households Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Choi Young-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Jong-Un and one other (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Incheon District Court Decision 95Kahap2729 delivered on October 16, 1995

1. All appeals filed by the respondent are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

With respect to the case of applying for provisional injunction against mutual use of the Incheon District Court No. 95Kahap1884 between the claimant and the respondent, the above court approves the provisional injunction order as of July 6, 1995.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The above provisional disposition decision is revoked, and the above provisional disposition application is dismissed.

1. Facts of provisional disposition;

On July 6, 1995, under the condition that the Incheon District Court shall not use the trade name of "three thousands0,000,000 won as security" or sell and distribute products using the trade name of the respondent with respect to the case of a provisional injunction against infringement under the Trade Name and Unfair Competition Prevention Act against the respondent as the preserved right. The respondent's possession of signboards, printed materials, products, etc. using the above trade name of the respondent and shall order the head of the month belonging to the Incheon District Court delegated by the applicant to keep them in custody. The chief of the month shall take appropriate measures to publicly announce the purport of the custody in the above case."

2. Existence of preserved rights

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) In full view of the whole purport of pleadings, the applicant company is established for the manufacture, sale, etc. of furnitures with the trade name of 1, 2, 4, and 1 to 9, each of the above 1 to 3, each of the above 1 to 5, each of the above 1 to 5, and each of the images of 5 to 1 to 7, and the statement of the witness at the least number of such 1 to 3,00,000 by using the above 197, the applicant company's trademark registration of the above 1 to 197, which is not widely known to the applicant's 197, such as the above 1 to 3,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000.

(b) Markets:

According to the above facts, the respondent is in violation of the applicant's business interest by doing an act that causes confusion with the applicant's goods by using the same or similar goods as the applicant's trade name, trademark, or selling goods that are widely known in Korea, or by using goods the same as the applicant's trade name, trademark, or similar goods that are widely known in Korea and causing confusion with the applicant's business activities. Thus, the applicant has a preserved right to seek prohibition against the use of the above trademark against the respondent pursuant to Article 4 and Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) through (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

C. Respondent's assertion

In this regard, the respondent argues that since the trademark "third-party household" used by the respondent is a trademark registered by the respondent under the Trademark Act, its use does not constitute an unfair competition act as the right of the respondent.

살피건대, 소을 제2호증, 소을 제3호증, 소을 제4 내지 6호증의 각 1 내지 3, 소을 제7호증의 1, 2, 소을 제8호증의 1, 2, 소을 제10호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 신청인이 피신청인들의 위와 같은 부정경쟁행위로 인하여 가구류 등의 판매고가 급격히 감소함을 알아내고 피신청인들의 부정경쟁행위를 문제삼게 된 사실, 그러자 피신청인들은 위와 같이 국내에 널리 알려진 신청인 상표의 지정 상품에 가구류가 누락된 것을 알고 상표법을 악용하여 종전과 같은 방식으로 계속 영업할 목적으로 1994. 12. 5. 별지 제2목록 (1) 기재 표장이 신청인의 제203213호 등록상표의 권리 범위에 속하지 아니한다는 심판을 구하고, 피신청인 김정숙은 1994. 12. 6. 서비스등록출원 제9932호로 같은 목록 (2) 기재 상표를, 지정서비스업을 서비스업류 구분 제110류 목공업, 가구가공업, 침구가공업으로 정하여, 같은 날 연합 서비스등록출원 제9934호로 같은 목록 (3) 기재 상표를, 지정서비스업을 서비스업류구분 제110류 목공업, 가구가공업, 침구가공업으로 정하여, 1995. 3. 6. 연합상표출원 제8003호로 "DIANE"이라는 상표를, 지정상품을 상품구분 제26류 소파, 침대, 식탁, 의장, 경대, 책장, 진열장, 매트, 매트리스, 침대커버, 농, 의자, 책상으로 정하여 출원한 사실, 또한 피신청인들은 1995. 8. 18. '삼익가구' 표장은 상표등륵 제203213호의 권리범위에 속하지 아니한다는 심판 및 '삼익가구' 서비스표는 상표등록 제203213호의 권리범위에 속하지 아니한다는 심판을 청구하여 1996. 3. 6. 특허청 심판소에서 같은 취지의 심결이 이루어진 사실은 이를 인정할 수 있으나, 위 인정과 같은 상표출원 및 권리범위확인심판만으로는 피신청인들이 출원한 상표가 유효한 등록사정을 받고 설정등록을 함으로써 상표권을 취득하게 되었다고 볼 수 없고 달리 이를 인정할 아무런 증거가 없으며, 나아가 설령 피신청인들이 위 상표들에 대하여 상표권을 취득하였다고 하더라도 위 인정 사실과 같이 상표의 등록이 자기의 상품을 타업자의 상품과 식별시킬 목적으로 한 것이 아니고 국내에 널리 인식되어 사용되고 있는 타인의 상표가 아직 상표등록이 되어 있지 아니함을 알고 그와 동일, 유사한 상표나 상호, 표지 등을 사용하여 일반 수요자로 하여금 타인의 상표와 혼동을 일으키거나 타인의 영업상의 시설이나 활동과 혼동을 일으키게 하여 이익을 얻을 목적으로 형식상 상표권을 취득한 것에 불과할 경우에는 상표의 등록출원 자체가 부정경쟁행위를 목적으로 하는 것으로서 이는 상표법을 악용 내지 남용한 것이 되어 상표법에 의한 적법한 권리의 행사라고 볼 수 없으므로 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 , 제4조 의 적용을 배제할 수 없다 할 것인 즉, 피신청인들의 위 주장은 어느모로 보나 이유 없다.

3. Determination on the necessity of preservation

In light of the above facts, in order to exclude the infringement of the respondent's mutual rights and unfair competitive acts, the execution by the judgment on the merits must be avoided. If the plaintiff's business activities and the goods are misperceptible and confused with each other, the plaintiff's business activities and the goods are likely to cause irreparable damage to the applicant's business activities and credit, so the necessity of the preservation is also explained.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the above provisional disposition decision should be approved because it is reasonable to maintain it, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, so all appeals filed by the respondent shall be dismissed. The appeal cost is assessed against the respondent who has lost it, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)