Criteria to determine whether a mark indicating another person's goods has been widely known domestically in Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 18 (3) 1 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013)

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10562 Decided September 11, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1408) Supreme Court Decision 201Do10978 Decided November 29, 2012

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Yellow-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013No1728 Decided August 14, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

A. Whether a mark indicating another person's goods is widely known in Korea under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "the Unfair Competition Prevention Act") is based on the period of use, method, mode, quantity, quantity of use, scope of transaction, etc., the actual circumstances of the transaction of goods, and whether it is objectively widely known under social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10562, Sept. 11, 2008, etc.).

B. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the "○○○○○" (hereinafter "the mark of this case") was introduced from around August 31, 1994 on the victim's trade name to the time when the Defendant established the "○○○○" corporation. From around August 31, 1994, the sales amount increased from about 15 years to about 74 billion won in around 1996 to about 1.4 billion won in around 2003, and around 2.1 billion won in around 2008 and around 2.1 billion won in around 2009. However, it is difficult to view that the mark of this case was introduced in addition to the above fact that the victim's natural cosmetics was acquired as a "natural cosmetics" as the date and time of the crime charged. However, it is difficult to view that the mark of this case was acquired as a "natural cosmetics."

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the crime, without any specific grounds, that the mark of this case obtained knowledge of the natural cosmetics around the day of the crime. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the well-knownness of the product labels under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

C. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Unfair Competition Prevention Act should be reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of the Patent Act and the violation of the Trademark Act

A. Regarding the relationship between the defendant and the victim

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, ① the victim displayed and sold natural cosmetics in around May 1994 at the citizen axis of environmental products. The defendant started the business of manufacturing and selling natural cosmetics; completed the business registration with its trade name; and completed the manufacturing contract with Nonindicted Co., Ltd.; ② the defendant was in combination with the "○○○○○○" on February 1995 and managed and operated the "○○○○○○○○○" upon delegation of the victim’s comprehensive delegation by the director and the office of the head of the business headquarters; ③ the victim was in charge of developing the natural cosmetics or conducting external public relations activities; ③ the victim was in charge of raising the idea of developing the natural cosmetics; ③ the victim’s ownership of 40/10 of the building constructed on April 4, 1992 under the name of the defendant, and the victim’s share in the "○○○○○○○○○" registered as part of the designated goods under the name of the victim and the victim’s share in the "○○○○○○○".

According to the above facts, the Defendant and the victim jointly invested in each other to enter into a partnership agreement with the content of the business of manufacturing and selling natural cosmetics, and the partnership property for the joint business is deemed to have the right to “○○○○○○○○” as a partnership property.

Although there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the court below, the court below's determination to the above purport is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to anonymous contracts similar to anonymous associations, which go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or which

B. As to the dissolution of a partnership relationship

In a partnership relationship, the partnership relationship is terminated by the occurrence of a cause prescribed by the partnership agreement, agreement of all union members, success or failure of a business which is the object of the partnership, request for dissolution, etc. In extenuating circumstances, such as where the trust relationship cannot be expected to be operated smoothly due to the destruction of trust relationship due to the extinguishment or disestablishment between the parties to the partnership, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da4957 delivered on May 30, 1997, etc.). In addition, in a partnership relationship with two persons, one of them shall not be subject to liquidation after termination without dissolution, and the partnership property belonging to the partnership's joint ownership shall belong to the sole ownership of the remaining union members, and shall be calculated by withdrawal between the withdrawing and the remaining party (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da2511, 22528 delivered on October 14, 1997, etc.).

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, even if the victim of the snow company tried to operate the “○○○○○○○” independently while filing an application for arbitration as to the distribution of the association’s property with the Korea Arbitration Board, and the Defendant continued the same business by establishing “○○○○○” around September 2009, the circumstance alone is insufficient to deem that the relationship between the Defendant and the victim was dissolved due to an inevitable cause due to implied agreement or the destruction of trust relationships between the parties, and the trademark right, etc., which is the union property, was converted to

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the dissolution of a partnership relationship as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. As to title trust

The lower court determined that the patent of this case and the trademark of this case are registered in the sole name of the victim, and that it is difficult to regard the patent of this case and the trademark of this case as registered in the name of the victim solely because of the victim’s

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on title trust of patent rights

D. As to the invalidity of a patent

Inasmuch as the Patent Act provides that a patent may be invalidated through a separate procedure for the invalidation trial of a patent granted in cases where a certain reason exists, even if registered invalidation exists, a patent does not become null and void on a detailed basis unless a trial decision to invalidate the patent has become final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da95390, Jan. 19, 2012). Furthermore, there is no circumstance to deem that the patent of this case is obviously null and void by a patent invalidation trial.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Patent Act is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the invalidation of patent and by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence

E. As to the criminal intent of the defendant

In light of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, namely, the background leading up to the Defendant’s business registration under the trade name of “○○○○○○,” the Defendant’s duty and role in the business, and the victim controlled the payment of funds from November 2008, and the nominal owner of the patent of this case and the trademark of this case, the lower court’s determination that recognized the Defendant’s intentional act of infringement of the patent of this case and trademark of this case is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no

3. Scope of reversal

As seen earlier, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Unfair Competition Prevention Act should be reversed, and since the part against the patent law and trademark law which the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes with the above reversed part under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment below should be reversed in its entirety.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)