[1] Where a trade name is used as a service mark, the scope of the effect of the trademark right or service mark right

[2] The meaning of "the purpose of unfair competition" under Article 51 (1) of the Trademark Act and the standard for determining "the purpose of unfair competition"

[3] The case holding that the registered trademark "which is a fluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bru

[1] Where one's trade name is used for a service business, it may be used as a service mark indicating the source of the other service. In such a case, if it is used in a common way in the transaction society, it constitutes "service mark indicating his trade name in a common way" under Articles 51 (1) and 2 (3) of the Trademark Act, and thus, it does not affect the trademark right or the registered service mark right. However, even if it is such a service mark, if it is used for the purpose of unfair competition after the establishment of the trademark right or service mark right is registered, it shall be deemed that the trademark right or the service mark right is effective

[2] The purpose of unfair competition under Article 51 subparagraph 1 of the Trademark Act is to obtain unfair profits by using the credit of a registered trademark holder or service mark holder, and is merely a registered trademark or service mark. It is insufficient to deem such purpose to be the same solely on the basis of the fact that it was aware of the fact that it was a registered trademark or service mark. The subjective circumstance such as the similarity of a trademark and the credit status of an infringed trademark, the similarity of business purpose, and the regional adjacentness of business activities, and the use status of the trademark infringer's actual use should be determined by taking into account the following factors:

[3] The case holding that it is also identical or similar since it is widely known that the term "limited partnership company flusium" and "stock company flusium" are identical or similar to "original flusium", a registered trademark, and the term "original flusium", and the term "original flusium", a registered service mark, had already been operating the above "blusium" at the time of using the above trade names, and there is a letter "flusium" that "flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium.

[1] Articles 2(3) and 51 subparag. 1 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 51 subparag. 1 of the Trademark Act / [3] Articles 51 subparag. 1 and 93 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Hu111 decided Feb. 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 538), Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1264 decided Mar. 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 891), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1930 decided May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2125), Supreme Court Decision 98Do401 decided May 22, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 1834) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Hu69 decided Jan. 24, 198 (Gong1984, 374), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu4199 decided Oct. 13, 1995 (Gong1965 decided Oct. 24, 196)

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 9No1692 delivered on August 19, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. 85 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where his trade name is used for a service business, it may be used as a service mark in the form of indicating the source of the independent service. In such a case, if it is used in a common way in a transaction society, it constitutes a service mark indicating one’s trade name in a common way under Articles 51 subparag. 1 and 2(3) of the Trademark Act, and thus, it does not affect the effect of a registered trademark right or a service mark right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1930, May 12, 1995). However, even if such a service mark is used for an unfair competition after the establishment of the trademark right or service mark right is registered, it shall be deemed that the effect of the trademark right or the service mark right shall extend to the case where it is used for an unfair competition after the establishment of the trademark right or service mark right is registered. Meanwhile, the purpose of the unfair competition should be determined solely on the basis of the fact that it was known that it is a registered trademark or service mark, such as the motive for the selection of the trademark by the infringer, etc.

The court below accepted the evidence of the court of first instance, and held that the defendant violated the aforementioned legal principles, such as "shared with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with 13 March 13, 1996 and June 198, 198", which is similar to "brut with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with fluort with flut with fluort with flut with 1997.97.97.97.

In addition, the defendant's trade name, "limited partnership company flusium" and "stock company flusium burden" are identical or similar to "original flusium", which is a registered trademark at the level applied to the victim's car, and "original flusium", which is a registered service mark of the victim, "original flusium" and "original flusium" have already been operated by the general consumers at the time when the defendant uses the above trade name, and it seems that the letter "flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium.

There is no reason for all arguments.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)