The case holding that even if the applicant is widely recognized as the author of the "Mara" (hereinafter referred to as the "Mara") in the English and factory book, the "Mara" still refers to the applicant's work created or the product itself containing the work, and it cannot be deemed that the applicant's work was a business mark.

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

For the purpose of political support

Social deliberation loan Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Yellow-man et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na3596 delivered on September 4, 2002

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, 200 U.S. applicants were to enter into an agreement with the Respondent on May 26, 19, 200 to establish an exclusive publication right for 3 years with respect to their English learning activities. They were to enter into an agreement with the Respondent on July 19 of the same year with the Respondent on the 20th anniversary of their publication, 200 U.S. Report No. 100, U.S. Report No. 2 with the Respondent that the Respondent had the Respondent enter their respective English learning activities into an agreement with the Respondent No. 40, U.S. Report No. 2 with the Respondent on the Respondent, and that the Respondent had the Respondent enter their respective English learning activities into an agreement with the Respondent on the Respondent No. 3, U.S. Report No. 2 with the Respondent to the effect that the Respondent had the Respondent enter their respective English learning activities into their respective English learning activities with the Respondent.

2. The judgment of this Court

First, it can be widely known that the title "Yeng" is the author of the book created by the applicant through the number of copies of sale and newspapers, broadcast reports, etc. of the book created by the applicant or the author of the English learning method contained in the book. Accordingly, the applicant can be widely known as the author of the book "Ye Young" or the author of the English learning method contained in the book. However, with respect to the applicant's business of English learning method, the applicant's business is indicated as the author of the book's outer sign containing the work created by his work (which is most cases where the name of the book or pen or abbreviation, etc. are written.). In light of the fact that the applicant's name or content as a creative production contained in the book as the original book is expressed directly or as the author's original book, it is not possible for the applicant to recognize that the applicant's business has been widely known as the author's original work, and it is still an applicant's independent work.

In addition, as stated in the judgment of the court below, there are many books using the above title, and the applicant has been widely known as the creator of the work recorded in the above book due to lectures or broadcasts. As a result, the respondent's use of part of the above title 5 through 12 in the above title may lead to misconception and confusion of the general public. However, in light of the fact that the above title is hard to become the applicant's business mark, the mistake and confusion of the general public is not a separate one from the above title 5 through 12 title, but it is difficult to be the applicant's business mark.

Therefore, the respondent's use of the above list 5 to 12 in the book does not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the business marks and unfair competition acts under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The respondent's ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)