출원상표 "문학1|판"이 그 지정상품인 '정기간행물, 서적, 잡지' 등과 관련하여 상품의 출처를 표시하는 식별력이 있는 상표라고 한 사례

출원상표 "문학1|판"은 '문학'과 '판' 및 기호 '1|'를 결합한 조어상표로서, '판'의 사전적 의미로는 ㉠ 일이 벌어진 자리나 장면, ㉡ 같은 판에 인쇄 횟수, ㉢ 책의 크기, 인쇄의 종류나 바탕 등이 있는데, 일반적으로 출원상표는 '문학이 벌어진 자리, 문학이 펼쳐지는 자리, 문학을 펼쳐놓은 곳'의 의미로 인식된다 할 것이고, 국어 단어로서 문학이나 역사학, 철학 등의 학문 분야에 '판'이라는 단어가 결합된 복합어가 존재하지 않는 점 및 '문학'과 '판' 사이에 결합된 기호 '1|'의 형태 및 그 간격에 비추어 출원상표가 '문학과 관련된 인쇄본이나 책, 문학을 담고 있는 책' 또는 '문학에 관한 제1판, 문학에 관한 제1집, 문학에 관한 제1편' 등의 의미로 인식된다고 보기는 어렵다 할 것이므로 그 지정상품 중 '정기간행물, 서적, 잡지' 등과 관련하여도 자타식별력이 있다 할 것이고, 또한, 출원상표를 출원인에게 위 지정상품의 출처표시로 독점을 허용한다 하더라도 다른 사람이 상품을 기술하거나 알리는 데 방해가 되지 않는다고 한 사례.

Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of Si/Gun/Gu Office (Patent Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

May 27, 2004

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 5, 2004 on the case No. 2003 Won4667 shall be revoked;

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the instant trial decision

A. On October 7, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application for trademark registration with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as to the applied trademark of this case. On October 30, 2003, the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on the ground that the trademark of this case applied for trademark registration falls under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act because it has no distinctive character of other goods if it is used as the designated goods.

B. Accordingly, on November 28, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the decision of refusal with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal. However, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated the case on Feb. 5, 2004 after hearing the case on Feb. 5, 2004, where the applied trademark of this case is used as a title, etc. in relation to periodicals, books, magazines, etc. among the designated goods, it is difficult to deem that there is a special distinctive character, and the decision of this case was rendered to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that it falls under Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act because it is not reasonable for the public interest to allow a specific person to use the trademark by monopoly.

C. The content of the applied trademark of this case is as follows.

(1) Composition:

(2) Applicant: The plaintiff

(3) The filing date/application number: October 7, 2002/202-45847

(4) Designated goods: Periodicals, books, magazines, calendars, newspapers, pictures, spags, carvings, posters, learning papers, and leaflets (category 16 category 16 category of goods).

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence Nos. 3-1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) 이 사건 출원상표는 '문학'과 '판'을 기호 '1|'로 결합한 것으로서 보통으로 사용하는 방법으로 표시된 표장만으로 된 상표가 아니고, 수요자의 평균적인 주의력으로 이 사건 출원상표를 관찰할 때 출처표시 기능을 할 수 있으므로, 식별력을 부인할 수 없다.

(2) The trademark applied in this case is named as a "litergical board", and the literary board is recognized as a "place where the literature takes place" as a protocol, and this is not a term directly indicating the contents of periodicals, books, magazines, etc., and thus, it is distinguishable in light of the actual circumstances, appearance, and concept of the trade system.

(3) The applicant does not interfere with the disclosure or disclosure of goods, even if the applicant grants the exclusive license to the trademark of this case by means of a periodical, book, magazine, etc.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

(1) 이 사건 출원상표는 '문학'과 '판' 사이에 '1|' 기호가 삽입된 표장으로, 간단하고 흔한 표장에 해당하는 기호 '1|'가 스스로 특별한 관념이나 식별력을 생성하거나 문자와 결합하여 기술적 표장인 문자의 관념을 상쇄할 만한 새로운 식별력이 생성되는 것도 아니다.

(2) The trademark applied in this case is named as a "litergical board", and is understood as a "printed, book, or book containing a literature", and thus, it constitutes a technical mark indicating the contents, quality, etc. of the designated goods in relation to the "periodicals, book, etc." as the designated goods.

In addition, if it is recognized as a literature 1 plate, it is recognized as meaning such as the first edition of literature, the first page of literature, and Part I concerning literature, and it is a technical mark that indicates the contents, quality, time, etc. of designated goods in relation to the designated goods in this case, such as books.

In addition, even if the meaning of the trademark of this case among the trademarks applied for registration of this case was used as a contact with the term "place or page where the date was punished" as the plaintiff's argument, the trademark of this case is recognized as a place where the literature is punished, a place where literature is engaged, a place where literature is engaged, etc., and it constitutes a technical mark that indicates the contents, quality, etc. of the designated goods, such as periodicals, books, etc.

(3) The trademark applied in this case needs to be freely used by a trader of the same or similar type of business, and public interest does not allow a specific person to use the trademark exclusively or exclusively.

(c) Markets:

(1) Whether it falls under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

(A) Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act provides that "any trademark, other than those referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 6, which does not enable consumers to obtain trademark registration, from which it is impossible to distinguish goods related to his/her business." Under this provision, a trademark, the trademark of which trademark registration is to be refused pursuant to this provision, such as a trademark whose distinctiveness is not recognized in appearance, a trademark which is currently used by many people, and a trademark which is not recognized by many people, and which is deemed inappropriate to be exclusive for a specific person in light of the public interest, shall not fall under subparagraphs 1 through 6 of the same paragraph, but it is not a supplementary provision to the effect that a trademark which does not distinguish one trademark from another's trademark can not be registered in light of the purpose of each of the above subparagraphs. Thus, in relation to certain goods, whether a trademark falls under Article 6(1)7 of the Trademark Act shall be determined by whether ordinary consumers can recognize the source of goods, namely, whether it is possible to distinguish the goods from those of another person's goods.

(B) From this perspective, we examine the distinctiveness of the applied trademark of this case.

갑 제3호증의 3, 갑 제4호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 출원상표는 '문학'과 '판'을 기호 '1|'로 결합한 조어상표로서, '판'의 사전적 의미로는 ㉠ 일이 벌어진 자리나 장면, ㉡ 같은 판에 인쇄 횟수, ㉢ 책의 크기, 인쇄의 종류나 바탕 등이 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정 사실에 의하면, 이 사건 출원상표는 일반적으로 '문학이 벌어진 자리, 문학이 펼쳐지는 자리, 문학을 펼쳐놓은 곳'의 의미로 인식된다 할 것이고, 국어 단어로서 문학이나 역사학, 철학 등의 학문 분야에 '판'이라는 단어가 결합된 복합어가 존재하지 않는 점 및 '문학'과 '판' 사이에 결합된 기호 '1|'의 형태 및 그 간격에 비추어 이 사건 출원상표가 '문학과 관련된 인쇄본이나 책, 문학을 담고 있는 책' 또는 '문학에 관한 제1판, 문학에 관한 제1집, 문학에 관한 제1편' 등의 의미로 인식된다고 보기는 어렵다 할 것이므로 그 지정상품 중 '정기간행물, 서적, 잡지' 등과 관련하여도 자타식별력이 있다 할 것이고, 또한, 이 사건 출원상표를 출원인에게 위 지정상품의 출처표시로 독점을 허용한다 하더라도 다른 사람이 상품을 기술하거나 알리는 데 방해가 되지 않는다 할 것이다.

The defendant argues that the trademark of this case is a technical mark that directly indicates the efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods in relation to the periodical, book, magazine, etc., among the designated goods, even though the trademark of this case is recognized as the meaning of the "place where the literature has been written", and therefore, the defendant's argument that the trademark of this case constitutes a technical mark that directly indicates the character of the designated goods in relation to the efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods. Therefore, the expression that is connected to the name of "the place where the literature takes place" can be deemed as expressing the efficacy, use, etc. of the designated goods to a certain extent (the designated goods other than the designated goods cannot be deemed as expressing the efficacy, use, etc. thereof). Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the trademark applied in this case is a distinctive trademark indicating the source of goods, and it cannot be rejected as it does not fall under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act. Accordingly, the trademark applied in this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)