[1] The meaning of "a mark indicating another person's business, which is widely known to the public in Korea" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[2] The case holding that it is reasonable to use the title of "Wel real estate bank", which is a magazine providing real estate information, as the trade name of a real estate presentation business establishment, to indicate "real estate bank licensed real estate agent" and to state such title as " chain designation store", which constitutes Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "an act which causes confusion with another person's business facilities or activities by using a mark identical or similar to the name, trade name, or emblem of another person widely known in the Republic of Korea, or any other mark indicating another person's business," as one of the unfair competition acts. Here, a mark indicating another person's business, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea, refers to a case where traders or consumers widely recognize a specific business from another person's business through it, to the extent of domestic discharge or within a specific scope, and does not include merely a case where traders or consumers widely recognize a specific business from another person's business. However, even if it is used for a long time, it constitutes a business mark protected by the above Act if customers or consumers are widely known as indicating a specific business. The meaning of confusion as provided by the above Act includes not only the case where the business owner is mistaken as being the same, but also the case where there is misconception that there is a business relation between the two business facilities or activities of another person.

[2] The case holding that using the title of "Wel real estate bank", which is a magazine providing real estate-related information, as the trade name of a real estate presentation business establishment, it is necessary to indicate "real estate bank licensed real estate agent" and state it as " chain designation store" and it constitutes Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 96Da24637 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2848), Supreme Court Order 96Ma364 delivered on October 15, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3393), Supreme Court Order 96Ma364 delivered on February 5, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 859), Supreme Court Order 96Ma675 delivered on April 24, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 151)

Defendant

Defendant

Completion of Attorney-at-Law

Seoul District Court Decision 96No3967 delivered on September 20, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 2 subparag. 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "an act which causes confusion with another person's business facilities or activities by using signs identical or similar to the name, trade name, or emblem of another person widely known in the Republic of Korea, or any other mark indicating another person's business," as one of the unfair competition acts. Here, a mark indicating another person's business, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea, refers to the case where customers or consumers distinguish and widely recognize a specific person's business from another person's business through it within the domestic discharge or within a certain scope, and does not include merely a descriptive expression of the contents of the business or ordinary terms used in a normal sense. However, even in such a case, if the trader or consumers are widely recognized as indicating a particular person's business by using it for a long time, it constitutes a business mark protected by the above Act. The meaning of confusion as provided in the above Act includes not only the case where the business owner is mistaken, but also the case where there is a business relation between the facilities or activities of two business operators.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-indicted corporation's act of acquiring real estate information has a high probability of 40,000 won or more monthly average since its registration on August 25, 198 as real estate banks with the aim of harming and publicizing the government's real estate policies and related statutes as part of its business activities, introducing various real estate wholesalers information and market prices across the country, and contributing to the establishment of a sound real estate transaction order. The above magazines have been published for about eight consecutive years since they were registered as real estate banks. The above magazines, as real estate professionals, have been specialized in real estate, with a lot of public confidence, and have a high probability of 'real estate banks' as well as 'real estate agents' and consumers in the name of "real estate banks', such as various daily newspapers, newspapers, broadcasting, and personal computer networks, and thus, had a high probability of 'real estate banks''' and 'real estate agents' acts related to real estate banks' under the name of 'real estate banks' and 'real estate agents' in Seoul.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and further, according to the records, the defendant used the title of the above "real estate bank" magazine from the front of the office signboard to the letter of "real estate bank". In addition, in light of these facts and the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and even if the above "real estate bank" is a magazine title, if it is widely known as an indication related to a specific person's business, it can be a business mark. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)