A. The meaning of an interested person under Article 45(1)1 of the Trademark Act and Article 43(2) of the Trademark Act

(b) Validity of an agreement on prior renunciation of interests in the trademark right of the person holding the trademark right;

(c) The meaning of "when goods identical or similar to the registered trademark are used on goods identical or similar to the designated goods" under Article 45 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act;

(a) An interested party under the main sentence of Article 45(1)1 and Article 43(2) of the Trademark Act means a person who has a direct and realistic interest in the extinguishment of a trademark, inasmuch as the existence of an unlawful trademark registration to be revoked is likely to result in the impossibility of using the trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark because it is against the trademark right holder due to the invalidation of the trademark right;

B. When concluding a trademark use contract, the agreement that does not use the registered trademark after the contract is terminated, and that does not dispute the trademark for the reason of use after the contract is terminated is allowed, if it is a restrictive provision to prevent unlawful use of the trademark by the trademark right holder, and at the same time, the application of Article 45 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act, which is a public interest provision to promote the interests of general consumers, can be arbitrarily excluded by the agreement of the parties, and there is no concern that the trademark right holder's illegal act may not be promoted. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the prior waiver agreement of interests as above has no validity in light of the purport of

(c) "When a trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark of the person is used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods" under the main sentence of Article 45 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act means the case where the owner of the trademark has another person use the trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark for goods identical or similar to the designated goods, and it does not include the case where the owner of the trademark right allows his agent, etc. to use the trademark on his product.

(b)Articles 45, 45, paragraph 1(a) of article 45, paragraph 1(a) of article 43, paragraph 1 of article 43, and paragraph 2 of article 43 of the Trademark Act;

East Chemical Industry Company

[Defendant-Appellant] Sknife Sknife (Attorney Yellow-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 293, 294, 296 decided April 29, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the main text of Article 45 (1) 1 and Article 43 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act, where a claimant denies or uses a trademark identical with or similar to his registered trademark for goods identical with or similar to the designated goods, the trademark registration shall be cancelled by an interested party's request. This interested party means a person who has a direct and realistic interest in the extinguishment of a trademark right because the trademark cannot be used identical or similar to or similar to the registered trademark due to the existence of an unlawful trademark registration which should be cancelled by the owner of the trademark right. Thus, the court below's determination that a claimant's prior use of the trademark is not likely to have been infringed by the contract of this case for the purpose of preventing any unlawful use of the trademark at the same time after the conclusion of the contract of this case, which is the trademark of this case, from the point of view that the trademark right holder's prior use of the trademark "DITN" and "DITN", which are identical or similar to each designated goods, and thus, it is clear that each of the above contracts should be cancelled and cancelled.

With respect to the second and third points:

"When a trademark identical or similar to his own registered trademark is used on goods identical or similar to the designated goods" under the main sentence of Article 45 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act means where the trademark holder allows another person to use the trademark identical or similar to his own registered trademark on "goods of another person", and it does not include cases where the trademark holder allows his agent, etc. to use the trademark on "goods of another person".

However, according to the records, all the claimant used the registered trademark of this case of this case of this claimant and similar trademark "diditan" and "Otran" of this case of this claimant, and products such as insecticides and sterilizations of this case are not subdivided into sales agent of the respondent as a sales agent of the respondent, but products independently produced from the claimant as a separate management agent from the respondent. Further, the court below's decision that each of the above trademarks, which the claimant is identical or similar to his own registered trademark, constitutes a ground for cancellation of trademark registration under the main sentence of Article 45 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act as designated goods, and it is just in the court below's decision that each of the above trademarks, which the claimant used the trademark of this case of this case of this claimant as the product of this case of the claimant, constitutes a ground for cancellation of trademark registration under the main sentence of Article 45 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misapprehension

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)