[1] The meaning of "trade name and trademark widely known in Korea" under Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[2] Requirements for the product type to constitute "a mark indicating others' goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[1] The meaning of Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act " widely known in the Republic of Korea" is not required to be widely known to all persons in the Republic of Korea, but is sufficient to be known to the extent between traders or consumers within a certain domestic area.

[2] The form of a product is allowed to be copied and produced in principle unless it is protected by a design right or patent right, etc., and exceptionally, it constitutes a "mark indicating other person's goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act only where the discriminatory feature of a product by continuous, exclusive or continuous use of the product for a long time is considerably individual to the extent that it is the product of a certain source with a specific quality to customers or consumers, and thus, it can be protected under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (the design used on the surface of the stable hole by a stock company for the design is not a product mark widely known in the Republic of Korea, and thus, it cannot be protected under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act).

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 96Ma217 delivered on May 13, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2848), Supreme Court Order 96Da24637 delivered on October 15, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3393), Supreme Court Order 96Ma364 delivered on February 5, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 599) / [2] Supreme Court Order 94Do1947 delivered on December 26, 1996 (Gong195Sang, 526), Supreme Court Order 96Do197 delivered on May 26, 1996 (Gong195Sang, 197Sang, 196Do2975 delivered on November 26, 1996)

The administrator of the Reconvenion Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Jeong-sung, Attorneys Jeon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 95Ra174 dated March 29, 1996

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act does not require that the meaning of "domestic wide recognition" is widely known to all persons discharged from active service, but it is sufficient to the extent known among traders or consumers within a certain local area (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 74Da1989, Feb. 10, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 80Da829, Dec. 9, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 94Do399, Jul. 14, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 94Do396, Jul. 16, 199). Meanwhile, the type of a product is allowed to imitate it in principle unless it is protected by a design right or patent right, etc., and it is exceptionally permitted to manufacture it, but it falls under the category of a product that has a specific quality of products by continuous, exclusive or continuous use for a long time, or advertisement to the extent that it can be declared as 196.196 other's mark 196.296.6

The court below rejected the decision of the court below in light of the above legal principles and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the respondent's assertion that there is no possibility of confusion between the applicant's act and the act of causing confusion between the applicant's act and the act of causing confusion between the applicant's act and the act of causing confusion between the applicant's act of using the same design as the design of this case as the design of this case and the design of the design of the attached drawing No. 2 of the order of the court below (hereinafter referred to as the "design of this case") as the product mark of the improvement corporation which the reorganization company's improvement factory (hereinafter referred to as the "convenor") used on the surface of the stable factory.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)