[1] The meaning of "goods" under Article 2 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act

[2] The case holding that a sample of a part of the component composed of the dried Health Products, which is traded by an agency, not for sale, such as 'bryl, giving, receiving, or taking of house', which is marked by the registered trademark, does not constitute a product under the Trademark Act, since it is not within the scope of identity in light of the composition and ratio of the component, i.e., the dried Health Products and the products bearing characteristics of the component,

[1] Article 2 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997) / [2] Articles 2 (1) 6 and 73 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Hu58 delivered on June 25, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 1517)

Obproductive Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Lee Byung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Oral land Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Song-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2001Heo3590 delivered on December 14, 2001

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The term "use of a trademark" under Article 2 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997; hereinafter the same applies) means an act of indicating a trademark, an act of transferring or delivering a trademark on goods or packages of goods, an act of displaying or delivering it for such purpose, or an act of displaying, exporting or importing it on goods, an act of displaying, exporting or importing a trademark on advertisements, price lists, transaction documents, signboards or labels, and an act of displaying or distributing a trademark on goods, and the term "goods" refers to goods, the exchange value of which itself serves as the object of independent commercial transactions (see Supreme Court Decision 98Hu58, Jun. 25, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the registered trademark of this case (registration number No. 320471) of this case (registration number No. 3204) is indicated separately on the containers (containers) for each grain separately, along with the name of the content of the registered trademark of this case and the phrase "for distribution as of April 7, 199" and "for sample" attached to the container, other than the registered trademark of this case, the registered trademark of this case (registration number No. 320471) was stated. The plaintiff's agencies received the containers containing the grain from the plaintiff without compensation, and actually displayed several kinds of grains, i.e., dry-dried food or dry-dried food, which is mixed with a certain ratio, and determined to the effect that the registered trademark of this case was properly revoked since it did not constitute evidence of Article 7 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act that presented by the plaintiff's agencies to general consumers as raw materials of dry-dried food sold at the plaintiff's agencies (registration No. 3 of this case).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, 'Gradry, acceptance, and acceptance', etc., which are incurred in the glass bottled with the trademark of this case, are nothing more than products for sale, but also products within the scope of identity in terms of the composition and ratio of ingredients, i.e., the products within the scope of identity in transaction norms, i., the products with the characteristic of the composition and ratio of ingredients, i.e., the products with an exchange value in relation to the Plaintiff and its agents, or with ordinary consumers, are not products under the Trademark Act because they cannot be viewed as goods subject to independent commercial transaction with an exchange value in relation to the Plaintiff and its agents, and therefore, the act of delivering the trademark of this case to the Plaintiff's agent, including the act of indicating the trademark of this case, and all of the acts of displaying the trademark of this case to the Plaintiff's agent and displaying it to the Plaintiff's agent shall not be deemed to constitute the use of the trademark of this case under Article 2 (1) 6 of the former Trademark Act. Accordingly, the judgment below

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 on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)