Where the form of the product falls under the "mark indicating that it is another person's product" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Generally, the form of a product does not have the function of indicating the origin of the product, but it does not have the function of expressing the origin of the product, if the form of the product has been used continuously, exclusively, or continuously for a long time, or if the differentiated feature of the form has been individualized to the extent that it can be understood as the product of a specific quality among traders or users, it has the function of distinguishing the other product from the other product. This case only constitutes "a mark indicating other person's product" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Article 2 subparag. 1 (A) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

Defendant

Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 94No910 delivered on May 17, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

Generally, even though the form of a product does not have the function of indicating the origin of the product, if the form of the product has been used continuously, exclusively, or continuously for a long time, or if the differentiated feature of the product has been individualized to the extent that it can be understood as the product of a specific quality among traders or users, it has the function of distinguishing the product from the other product, and only in such a case, it constitutes "a mark indicating other person's product" under Article 2 (1) (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that, in comprehensive consideration of the defendant's sales period, sales quantity and value, kinds of advertising advertisements, frequency of advertising advertisements, and the size of domestic fully-run market at the time, and the circumstances in which the complainant's perfection market and the kind of products are sold in competition at the time, it is difficult to see that the complainant's form of the complete implementation of this case was acquired to the extent that it can be perceived as being individualized as the source labeling of the product as the form itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore, there is no evidence to prove the crime of this case as to the facts charged of this case on the premise that the complete implementation form of this case constitutes a mark indicating another person's goods under Article 2 (1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or a mark indicating another person's business.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or the legal principles of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)