(a) The meaning "trade name widely known domestically" under Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act;

B. Purport of Article 7 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and requirements for a trademark right holder to request suspension of a trademark use by a similar trademark user

1. The "trade name widely known in the Republic of Korea" under Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is not required to be known to all the people in the Republic of Korea, but is sufficient to be known to the extent between the traders or consumers within a certain domestic area.

2. The purport of Article 7 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is that even if an act falls under Article 2 of the same Act, if a person who has the right as prescribed in Article 7 of the same Act commits an act falling under the above Article 2 by exercising the right, the above Article 2 does not apply. In order for a trademark right holder to demand the suspension of a trademark use by a similar trademark user, the trademark right holder's demand for the trademark use should be confused with the product of a similar trademark user except for the condition that the trademark is widely known to the trader or trader.

Lone Star wabSS Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Yoon Jong-nam, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na708 delivered on October 4, 1974

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

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. As to the plaintiff's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, "trade name widely known in the Republic of Korea" is not required to be known to all persons at the place of discharge from Korea, but it is sufficient to the extent known among traders or consumers within a certain local area. However, the court below's decision on this point is reasonable in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's trademark is not known to all persons across the country of discharge from Korea, but it is not widely known to the general public. The above recognition is justified in light of the evidence indicated in the judgment of the court below. In addition, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's trade name widely known in the Republic of Korea is just in light of the evidence indicated in the judgment of the court below, and its price was up to seven million won or eight million won as at the time of the defendant's trademark registration, but the court below did not recognize the fact that the plaintiff's respondent's trade name was not widely known to the demand for general exposure from Korea.

2. The burden of proving the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's products are widely recognized in this case is the plaintiff, and the court below determined that the plaintiff's evidence for the plaintiff's submission is not widely recognized as the demand for general Pianno as shown in the above statement, and it is not reasonable to hold the court below's decision that there is an illegal cause for lack of reason.

3. As stated in the ground of appeal Nos. 1 above, the court below did not hold that the trade name of the plaintiff was widely recognized on the ground that the number of the plaintiff's products in Korea is less than the value of the plaintiff's products and that the price is higher than the above value, and it is merely a part of the judgment of evidence in the process of a comprehensive judgment with other evidential materials. Thus, the court below's argument that there was an error in

4. The purport of Article 7 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is that, even if an act falls under Article 2 of the same Act, if an act falls under the above two Articles is performed by a person who has a right as prescribed in Article 7 of the same Act through the exercise of such right, the above two Articles shall not apply. Thus, if the defendant's act first does not fall under the act of Article 2 above, the defendant's claim for objection is without merit regardless of whether the defendant is a trademark right holder under the above Article 7, and it is not widely known as the plaintiff's trade name at the time of registration of the defendant's trademark. The court below's decision that the defendant's act of using the trademark falls under Article 2, 2, 1, 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is not unlawful, even if it is widely known that the domestic demand of the defendant's trademark is widely known to the parties and musicians, but the defendant's act does not affect the plaintiff's product's trade name or the defendant's product's result is not easily known to the plaintiff's above person.

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)