[1] Criteria for determining whether an act of unfair competition constitutes "unfair competition" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[2] Time to determine whether to acknowledge a claim for prohibition under Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (=time at which the argument in the fact-finding trial is concluded)

[3] Where the Korean Teachers' Credit Union sought prohibition against the Korean Teachers' Credit Union Co., Ltd. from mutual use, the case affirming the judgment below which held that the act of using the trade name "Korean Teachers' Credit Union Co., Ltd." constitutes a confusion of business entities under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act provides that “the act of causing confusion with another person’s business facilities or activities by using signs identical or similar to the name, firm name, or emblem of another person widely known in the Republic of Korea, or any other mark indicating another person’s business.” Here, “a mark indicating another person’s business” refers to a case where traders or consumers widely recognize another person’s business through such mark separately from other businesses within the Republic of Korea or within a certain scope, and “a mark indicating another person’s business, widely known in the Republic of Korea” refers to a case where traders or consumers widely recognize another person’s business, and whether the mark “a mark indicating another person’s business, widely known in the Republic of Korea” is a standard for responding to the use period, method, pattern, quantity of use, scope of trade, and social norms, and whether two trademarks used for the same type of business are identical or similar to those of another person’s business marks, and whether the mark is identical or similar to the act of another person’s general consumers or traders should be determined as well-knownly identical to the business mark.”

[2] The determination of whether to acknowledge a claim for prohibition under Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act shall be based on the time of the closing of argument in the fact-finding court.

[3] In a case where the Korean Teachers' Credit Union requested against the Korean Teachers' Credit Union Co., Ltd. to prohibit mutual use, the case affirming the judgment below that the act of using the trade name "Korean Teachers' Credit Union" constitutes confusion with the activities of Korean Teachers' Credit Union, on the grounds that it is recognized that the trade name "Korean Teachers' Credit Union" is widely known among the nationwide teachers' Credit Union, the trade name "Korean Teachers' Credit Union" is recognized as having substantial similarity or similarity with the name "Korean Teachers' Credit Union", and that at the time when the Korean Teachers' Credit Union established a subsidiary and started its business, it is recognized that the Korean Teachers' Credit Union caused confusion with the activities of Korean Teachers' Credit Union by expressing it as " Teachers' Credit Union" and expressing it as "Korean Teachers' Credit Union."

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act / [2] Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act / [3] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) and Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5837 Decided July 9, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3906 Decided January 26, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 356) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8459 Decided April 27, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 831), Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2885 Decided August 23, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10914 Decided May 29, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4899 Decided April 23, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 734) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da26389 Decided 205 decided March 29, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da26894 decided March 29, 2005

Korean Teachers' Credit Union (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorneys Lee Young-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korean Teachers' Credit Union Co.

Daegu High Court Decision 2010Na4760 decided January 6, 2011

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 2 subparag. 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) provides that “the act of causing confusion with another person’s business facilities or activities by using signs identical or similar to the name, trade name, or emblem of another person widely known in the Republic of Korea” as one of the unfair competition acts. Here, “mark indicating another person’s business” refers to a case where traders or consumers widely recognize a specific business from other businesses within the scope of domestic discharge or within a specific scope, and thus, “the mark indicating another person’s business widely known in the Republic of Korea” includes “the mark indicating another person’s business,” which is closely known to the general public in terms of its use, methods, quantity, use scope, etc., and the actual condition of the business mark and whether it is identical or similar to that of another person’s business mark (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5837, Jul. 9, 2004; 200Do286, Aug. 23, 2007).

Meanwhile, determination as to whether to recognize a claim for prohibition under Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act shall be based on the time of closing argument in the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da9011, Mar. 25, 2004; 2009Da22037, Jun. 25, 2009, etc.).

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision based on the evidence of employment. According to the facts acknowledged, the "Korean Teachers' Credit Union", which is the plaintiff's name, is recognized as widely known among the teachers and staff throughout the nation. The "Korean Teachers' Credit Union", which is the defendant's trade name, is recognized as practically identical or similar to the plaintiff's name, and send e-mail to the teachers and staff by the defendant while expressing the defendant as the Teachers' Credit Union at the time when the plaintiff established its subsidiary and started its mutual aid activities, and publicize it through the Internet media, publicize it through the Internet media, post a notice on savings and lending business such as the basic profit-making business operated by the plaintiff, and post a notice on the same savings and lending business as the plaintiff's basic profit-making business operated by the plaintiff on the website, by registering a national representative telephone number with the defendant's printing trade name as the "Teacher's Credit Union," thereby causing confusion with the plaintiff's activities by allowing them to receive information from the representative telephone number

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confusion of business entities under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or in violation of the rules of evidence.

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 Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)