[1] The elements for the form or shape of the product to constitute "a mark (mark) indicating that it is another person's goods" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

[2] The case holding that an act of manufacturing and selling a Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dogs' Dog Dog Dog Dogs' Dog Dogs' Dog Dogs' Dog Dogs' Dog Dogs' Dog Dog Dog

[1] Generally, the form or pattern of a product does not have a function to indicate the origin of the product, but is used as a means of giving a unique identity to a product; however, it constitutes a "mark (mark) indicating another person's product" as provided by Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6421 of Feb. 3, 2001) only when the form, pattern, pattern, or color, etc. of a product is used as a means of giving a good unique character to the product for a long time, or when the discrimination features of the product have been used continuously, continuously, and exclusively for a long time or continuously advertising have been considerably individualized to the extent that it is a product of a specific source.

[2] The case holding that since the Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna is widely known to the relevant consumers and the Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna is recognized as differentiated from the Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dogna’s Dog

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6421 of Feb. 3, 2001) / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6421 of Feb. 3, 2001)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da63674 delivered on February 23, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 723), Supreme Court Decision 98Do2250 delivered on April 10, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1167), Supreme Court Decision 99Do691 delivered on September 14, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2287)

Pomermerdo Pomerz. (Attorney Kim Ho-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Masung Trade Co., Ltd. (Attorney Go Sung-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Ka236 delivered on October 10, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. All costs of appeal are assessed against the respondent.

1. Generally, the form or pattern of a product does not have a function to indicate the origin of the product. However, the form, pattern, pattern, color, etc. of a product is used as a means of giving a unique identity to the product, and it is used continuously, continuously and exclusively for a long time, or its differentiated feature by continuous propaganda advertisement, etc. is considerably individualized to a trader or user to the extent that it is a product of a specific origin (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da63674 delivered on February 23, 2001).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined to the purport that the plaintiff's act of confusion with the plaintiff's goods constitutes an applicant's act of making confusion with the plaintiff's goods as an act of making confusion with the plaintiff's act of making confusion with the plaintiff's goods because the plaintiff's act of making confusion with the plaintiff's goods is identical or wrong with the plaintiff's act of making confusion with the plaintiff's goods as the plaintiff's act of making confusion with the plaintiff's goods, because the plaintiff's act of making confusion with the plaintiff's goods is identical or wrong with the plaintiff's goods, because the plaintiff's act of making confusion with the plaintiff's goods is an act of making confusion with the plaintiff's goods as the plaintiff's act of making confusion with the plaintiff's goods.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, violation of the rules of evidence, and incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds for

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)