[1] Whether manufacturing goods with a registered trademark affixed for export purposes by means of an original trademark attachment method (so-called OEM method) can be deemed as a domestic act of using a trademark (affirmative)

[2] The scope of application of Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997)

[1] The use of a trademark by means of an original trademark attachment method (so-called OEM method) constitutes an act of attaching a trademark on goods or packages of goods under Article 2(1)6 of the Trademark Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 5355 of August 22, 1997, and even if goods are manufactured for export purposes only within an exporting-free area, it can be deemed an act of using a trademark in Korea.

[2] Since July 1, 2001, which was the enforcement date of the Trademark Act amended by Act No. 6414 of Feb. 3, 2001, Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 535 of Aug. 22, 1997) providing that a trademark right holder permitted another person to use a trademark identical or similar to his/her registered trademark without registering establishment of exclusive or non-exclusive license pursuant to Article 73 (4) of the Addenda of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 6414 of Feb. 3, 2001) and Article 3 of the Addenda of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 6414 of Feb. 3, 2001), the trademark right holder has no ground for continuously applying Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 199). Accordingly, the revocation of trademark registration cannot be used as a ground for revocation.

[1] Article 2 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 535 of Aug. 22, 1997) / [2] Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997), Article 3 of the Addenda to the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997), Article 4 of the Addenda to the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Feb. 3, 2001)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Hu984 delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 638), Supreme Court Decision 93Do327 delivered on February 22, 1994 (194Sang, 1141), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu959 delivered on April 24, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1269) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu3845 Delivered on April 13, 2001 (Gong201Sang, 1163), Supreme Court Decision 99Hu3009 Delivered on September 25, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 2386)

Tsu Hasop Hasop Hasopa (Woom Chemical Co., Ltd.)

[1] J. Hask L.S.C.

Patent Court Decision 99Heo5210 delivered on December 30, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party Heung Chemical Co., Ltd., a subsidiary company in Korea, manufactured, at the plaintiff's order, 98 from November 20, 1998 to December 14, 1998, 9,858, an OEM method attached with the trademark of this case and then exported the trademark to the plaintiff in Japan. The court below held that the use of the trademark by the original trademark attachment method constitutes the act of attaching the trademark on the goods or the packaging of the goods under Article 2 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997) and even if the non-party Heung chemical Co., Ltd. manufactured the goods attached only to the trademark of this case for export within the exporter's territory, the trademark of this case can be seen as an act of using the trademark of this case, which is part of the designated goods of this case within three years prior to the filing of the judgment of this case.

B. In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below on this issue is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to cancellation of registration, adjudication, and use of trademark due to non-use of trademark as alleged in the

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the registration of the instant registered trademark could not be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)1 of the former Trademark Act, on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the non-party interest chemical corporation used the trademark identical or similar to the instant registered trademark for at least six months upon the Plaintiff’s permission

B. In light of the records, the fact finding by the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds of appeal, and Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act was deleted by the amended Trademark Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Trademark Act") No. 535 of Aug. 22, 1997. Article 1 of the Addenda of the former Trademark Act provides that the effective date of the trademark registration shall be March 1, 1998. Article 3 of the Addenda of the former Trademark Act provides that the previous provision of the trademark registration shall be applied to the trial, retrial and lawsuit against the registered trademark by an application for registration of renewal of trademark right and additional registration of designated goods before this Act enters into force, and Article 7 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act shall not be applied to the previous trademark registration application No. 1 of the amended Trademark Act No. 90, Feb. 3, 2001 (see Article 7 (1) and 1 of the Addenda of the Trademark Act).

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)