[1] Criteria for determining the similarity of goods

[2] The meaning and method of determining "a cause to confuse with another person's goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[3] 피고인이 각종 ‘캐주얼의류 및 스포츠 의류’ 등에 관하여 국내에 널리 인식된 피해자 회사의 상품표지인 “BANG BANG, 뱅뱅”과 동일·유사한 “BAENG, BAENG, 뱅뱅”, “BANG BANG, 뱅뱅” 등의 표장을 부착한 악력기, 스텝퍼, 줄넘기, 훌라후프 등을 제조하여 판매한 행위가 타인의 상품과 혼동을 하게 하는 부정경쟁행위에 해당한다고 본 사례

[1] Whether goods are similar or similar to goods should be determined on the basis of whether there is a concern for misunderstanding as goods manufactured or sold by the same company if they are used in the same or similar trademark. However, the similarity of goods should be determined on the basis of the general transaction norms, comprehensively taking into account the characteristics of the goods themselves, such as quality, shape, use and production sector, sales sector, scope of consumers, etc.

[2] The meaning of Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act includes not only the case where the source of goods is identical, but also the case where a general consumer or a trader misleads general consumers as to "whether it is not closely related to capital, organization, etc." by using a mark identical or similar to another's goods mark widely known in the Republic of Korea. Whether it constitutes an act of causing confusion with another's goods should be determined by taking into account the following factors: the mark's well-knownness and distinctive character degree, degree of similarity of marks, degree of similarity of marks, mode of use, similarity of goods, existence of competitive relations, and existence of bad faith (use) by using a mark identical or similar to another's goods mark widely known in the Republic of Korea.

[3] 각종 “캐주얼의류 및 스포츠 의류” 등에 관하여 국내에 널리 인식된 피해자 회사의 상품표지인 “BANG BANG, 뱅뱅”과 동일·유사한 “BAENG, BAENG, 뱅뱅”, “BANG BANG, 뱅뱅” 등의 표장을 부착한 악력기, 스텝퍼, 줄넘기, 훌라후프 등을 제조하여 판매한 행위가 타인의 상품과 혼동을 하게 하는 부정경쟁행위에 해당한다고 본 사례.

[1] Article 8 (1) of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act / [3] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) and Article 18 (3) 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu144 Decided July 22, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1473) Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu1048 Decided April 28, 2005 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Do2250 Decided April 10, 2001 (Gong201Sang, 1167)

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2006No2020 Decided November 9, 2006

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. As to the violation of the Trademark Act

이 사건 공소사실의 기재 내용에 비추어 살펴보면, 공소장에 기재되어 있는 ‘피해자 회사가 특허청에 등록한 상표인 BANG BANG, 뱅뱅’은 지정상품을 “손수건, 유니폼(운동복), 와이셔츠, 아동복, 스커트, 작업복” 등으로 하고 “ ”으로 이루어진 등록상표(등록번호 제48805호, 이하 ‘이 사건 등록상표’라 한다)를 의미하는 것으로 볼 수 있을 뿐, 지정서비스업을 ‘운동구수선업, 완구인형수선업’ 등으로 하고 “ ”로 이루어진 등록서비스표(등록번호 제21731호, 이하 ‘이 사건 등록서비스표’라 한다)라고 이해할 수는 없다 할 것이므로, 결국 상표법 위반의 점에 관한 공소사실의 요지는 ’피고인이 이 사건 등록상표와 동일·유사한 “BAENG, BAENG, 뱅뱅”, “BANG BANG, 뱅뱅” 등의 표장을 부착한 악력기, 스텝퍼, 줄넘기, 훌라후프 등을 제조·판매하여 그 상표권을 침해하였다‘라고 봄이 상당하다.

Furthermore, the similarity of goods shall be determined on the basis of whether the goods are likely to be mistaken for the goods manufactured or sold by the same company when using the trademark identical or similar to the goods compared to the goods. However, in light of the records, the goods should be determined on the basis of the general transaction norms by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics of the goods, such as quality, shape, use and production sector, sales sector, scope of consumers, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Hu144, Jul. 22, 2004; 2003Hu1048, Apr. 28, 2005). In light of the records, although the goods manufactured and sold by the defendant and the designated goods of the registered trademark of this case are considerably different from those of the goods manufactured and sold by the defendant, their quality and shape, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant infringed the trademark rights of the victim company.

Nevertheless, the court below did not examine and determine whether the defendant used a trademark identical or similar to the registered service mark of this case for goods identical or similar to the designated goods, and maintained the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges, on the ground that the defendant used the trademark identical or similar to the registered service mark of this case for goods identical or similar to the designated service business. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged and failing to properly examine and determine the facts charged.

2. As to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) means an act of causing confusion with another person's goods by using any goods identical or similar to another person's name, trade name, trademark, container or package, or any other mark indicating another person's goods, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea, or by selling, distributing, importing, or exporting goods using such a mark. The term "act of causing confusion with another person's goods" includes not only cases where the source of goods is the same, but also cases where ordinary consumers or traders use a mark identical or similar to another person's goods mark widely known in the Republic of Korea to the effect that "the act of causing confusion with another person's goods is not closely related to capital, organization, etc. between the subject of the mark of the goods concerned and users." The issue of whether it constitutes an act of causing confusion with another person's goods shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the degree of distinctiveness of the mark of goods, degree of similarity of marks, mode of use, similarity of goods, similarity of goods and customer's.

위 법리를 바탕으로 하여 원심판결 이유를 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이, 피고인이 각종 “캐주얼의류 및 스포츠 의류” 등에 관하여 국내에 널리 인식된 피해자 회사의 상품표지인 “BANG BANG, 뱅뱅”과 동일·유사한 “BAENG, BAENG, 뱅뱅”, “BANG BANG, 뱅뱅” 등의 표장을 부착한 악력기, 스텝퍼, 줄넘기, 훌라후프 등을 제조하여 판매한 행위는 타인의 상품과 혼동을 하게 하는 부정경쟁행위에 해당한다고 판단하였음은 정당한 것으로 수긍이 가고, 거기에 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같은 위법이 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the ground of appeal as to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is without merit, but there exists a ground of reversal as to the violation of the Trademark Act. The judgment of the court below is reversed, since the defendant was sentenced to one punishment as to the violation of the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)