[1] The meaning of a sign that leads to misconceptions about the production, manufacture, and processing area of goods under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (e) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the act of using "the first price" on the two parts produced in an area other than "the first price", on the ground that "the first price" constitutes the name of an area producing two parts which produce two parts which have a special good by using seawater directly by using seawater as a livering water, causing misconceptions as to the production, manufacturing, and processing area of products under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (e) of the Unfair

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (e) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act provides that "any misunderstandings about the production, manufacture, and processing area of goods" means that the other party to the transaction does not require such misunderstanding, but is in danger of being understood differently from the actual facts in light of the transaction concept based on the average of the ordinary traders, namely, the risk of being understood differently from the actual facts. The mark causing such misunderstanding includes not only direct false indications on the goods, but also explicit indications that indirectly cause such misunderstandings on the goods.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the act of using "the first place" on the two parts produced in an area other than the first place, where "the first place" is deemed to be the name of an area producing two parts which produce two parts which have a special good by using seawater directly by using seawater as a livering water, and that the act of using "the first place" causes misconceptions as to the production, manufacturing, and processing area of products under Article 2 subparagraph

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (e) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (e) and Article 18 (3) 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Do2903 delivered on January 26, 1999

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Seo Sung-sung et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2004No194 delivered on July 12, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's name of "the first party" had already been produced in two parts of the two parts, including the name "the first party", and it is widely known as a geographical name indicating two parts of the first village in Gangseo-si, which produces two parts of the sea water directly using sea water, and it does not constitute a common name or a tolerance mark with respect to two parts, and the "the first party" constitutes the name of the area where the goods under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (e) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act are produced, manufactured or processed. There is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on common name and tolerance mark as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 2 subparagraph 1 (e) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act states that "the other party to the transaction causes a misunderstanding in the production, manufacture, or processing area of the product" means the risk of being understood differently from the actual fact based on the general trader, i.e., average person's attention, rather than requiring the other party to the transaction. The mark causing such misunderstanding includes not only the direct false indication on the product, but also the expression indirectly causing such misunderstanding on the product (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2903 delivered on January 26, 199).

According to the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's use of the mark including the name "the first party" on the two transport containers and plastic packaging of the two parts, and that the general consumers' use the mark "the first party" in the above transport containers or plastic packaging and the two parts sold in the above transport containers are likely to be produced or processed in the area "the first party", and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 2 subparagraph 1 (e) of the above Act or in the violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)