The purport of Article 8 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

The term "where the trademark holder has allowed another person to use a trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods" under Article 45 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act means the case where the trademark holder allows another person to use the trademark for "other person's goods", which is identical or similar to the registered trademark, and it does not include the case where the trademark holder allows his/her agent, etc. to use the trademark on his/her own goods.

Article 45 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Hu615, 639, 646 Decided October 26, 1987 (Dong District Court Decision 86Hu78,79,80 Decided July 11, 1989

Patent Attorney Park Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Jununund Patent Attorney Kim Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 115 decided on April 30, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "where a trademark right holder approves or allows another person to use a trademark identical or similar to his own registered trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods, which is the reason for revoking the trademark registration under Article 45 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act," means the case where the trademark right holder allows another person to use the trademark identical or similar to his registered trademark on "other person's goods", and it does not include the case where the trademark right holder allows his agent, etc. to use it on "the goods of the trademark right holder's own" (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu78,79,80 delivered on October 26, 19

원심결 거시의 증거에 의하면, 캔넥스 스포츠상사는 피심판청구인이 생산하는 제품의 한국총판대리점이고, 동 상사는 본건 등록상표의 상표권자인 피심판청구인으로부터 수입된 그 제품인 스포츠용 샤쓰 등에 그 광고선전을 위하여 본건 등록상표를 사용한 사실이 인정되는 터이므로, 위와 같은 본건 등록상표의 사용은 상표권자가 자신의 제품에 상표를 사용한 것이고 타인으로 하여금 사용하게 하였거나 그 사용을 묵인한 것이라고 볼 수 없으니, 이는 상표법 제45조 제1항 제1호 소정의 상표등록취소사유에 해당하지 아니한다.

In addition, Article 2 (4) of the Trademark Act provides that "an act of exporting or importing (No. 2)" and "an act of attaching a trademark to the advertisement of goods" and "an act of displaying or distributing it (No. 3)" shall be used as a trademark. According to the records, during the period in which a claimant asserts that he/she had not used the registered trademark for not less than one year, it is true that an advertisement or publicity stating the registered trademark in a shower, which is the product of the respondent, has been conducted on the shower, which is the product of the respondent. Thus, it shall be deemed that the above person's trade or publicity on the shower for sports, which is the product of the respondent, has used the registered trademark on his/her own by the respondent. Thus, there is no reason to revoke the registration of the trademark as provided in Article 45 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act.

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete hearing, and therefore, the issue is groundless.

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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)