[1] Criteria for determining the meaning and use of a trademark right

[2] The case holding that a letter and pattern written in a gold-half may not be viewed as an infringement of trademark right since it was used to indicate the origin of a product, since it was used to indicate an individual's desire to enjoy from the perspective of the design

[1] Article 66 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 66 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do1424 delivered on February 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 830) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3445 delivered on April 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1218)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 2004No883 delivered on July 15, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

The act of using another person's registered trademark on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods constitutes an act of infringing another person's trademark right. However, even if it is used by another person's registered trademark, if it is not intended to indicate the source which can be seen as the essential function of the trademark and it cannot be seen as an act of infringing another person's trademark right. In order to determine whether it is used as a trademark, the trademark right of another person cannot be seen as an act of infringing another person's registered trademark where it is not recognized as the use of the trademark since it is not intended to indicate the source which can be seen as the essential function of the trademark. The trademark right of another person's registered trademark cannot be seen as an act of infringing another person's registered trademark where it is not recognized as the use of the trademark due to the use of the trademark on the basis of the trademark's relation with the goods, the shape of the use, such as the location and size of the trademark, the well-known and well-knownness of the registered trademark, and the user's intent and use circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do42454.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on its adopted evidence, determined whether to purchase disposable products, other than those produced in large volume, which are one-time product of this case, which reflects the individual's driving orientation in light of its characteristics, such as the dys of dys of release on bail, and consumers are used most of all others. Furma pattern, which is marked on the dys of this case, is changed in the central part of the gold base, and its size and size are relatively relatively much larger than those of the registered trademark, and on the other hand, "Puma" is changed to the bottom of the half, and unlike the registered trademark, it is hard to recognize that the defendant is using the trademark of this case as a trademark mark of this case, which is identical to the trademark of this case, and it is hard to recognize that the defendant is using the trademark of this case for the purpose of distinguishing the source and origin of the trademark of this case by emphasizing that the shape of dys of this case is an animal design, and thus, it is widely recognized that the trademark of this case's of this case is used.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on trademark rights as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the prosecutor's decision of 95Hu1401 delivered on March 12, 1996 differs from the issue, and it cannot be viewed as an appropriate precedent of this case.

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

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)