판례평석 : 상표의 다수 사용에 의한 후발적인 식별력 상실의 문제 -대법원 2015. 2. 12. 선고 2013후372 판결을 중심으로- = Case Review : Problems on Later Loss of Distinctiveness through a Lot of Use of Trademarks -Focused on Supreme Court Decision 2013Hu372 Decided February 12, 2015-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Article 71 (Trial for Invalidation of Trademark Registration) (1)(5) of the Trademark Act states that “Where trademark registration or the registration of additional designated goods falls under any of the following subparagraphs, an interested party or examiner may request a trial for invalidation. In such cases, if there exist two or more designated goods for the registered trademark, a request for a trial may be made for each of the designated goods: Where a registered trademark falls under any subparagraph of Article 6(1) after the registration of the trademark (excluding cases falling under Article 6(2)).” And the transitional provision concerning Trial, etc. on Registered Trademark of ADDENDA <Act No. 6414, February 3, 2001> states that “The previous provisions shall apply to a trial, retrial, and litigation pertaining to an application for trademark registration, an application for the registration for renewal of the duration of trademark rights, or an application for the registration of additional designated goods filed before this Act enters into force.” Therefore, when being determined on distinctiveness at the time of a decision, a trademark have been distinctive, but in case its distinctiveness is lost later after the trademark is registered, we can consider application of Article 71(1) 5 of the Trademark Act. By the way, the parties of lawsuits have suggested to the courts most practically that a trademark did not enable consumers to recognize whose goods it indicates in connection with a person`s business as the basis of what the trademark having had distinctiveness lost its distinctiveness later for a lot of use of trademarks being iden- tical with or similar to the registered trademark after a trademark was registered. Especially, the courts have often determined on later loss of distinctiveness through a lot of use of trademarks based on a lot of registration of trademarks identical with or similar to the registered trademark. And the courts is determining on a lot of use of trademarks practically based on a lot of registration of trademarks identical with or similar to the registered trademark regardless of real use of the trademarks. Recent Supreme Court Decision 2013Hu372 Decided February 12, 2015 has determined on the interpretation of the transitional provision of Article 71(1) 5 of the Trademark Act and problems on later loss of distinctiveness of trademarks through a lot of use of trademarks about the above issues. Therefore, this paper suggests proper direction of the interpretation about the above issues by analyzing the subject decision concretely.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박종태, "理智상표법" 한빛지적소유권센터 2013

2 특허법원 지적재산소송실무연구회, "지적재산소송실무(제3판)" 박영사 2014

3 이상경, "지적재산권소송법" 육법사 1998

4 정태호, "식별력이 없는 표장들로만 결합된 상표 심사의 기준정립에 관한 연구" 고려대학교 2010

5 송영식, "송영식 지적소유권법(하)" 육법사 2005

6 특허청 서비스표심사과, "서비스표 심사 세부 처리지침 및 요령"

7 특허청, "상표법해설"

8 강경태, "상표법상 수요자의 범위와 인식"

9 정지석, "상표법 제6조 제1항 제7호의 적용범위 － 특허법원 2004.12.24.선고 2004허3317판결(상고) －" 세창출판사 (40) : 2005

10 정태호, "상표법 이론과 실제"

11 사법연수원, "상표법"

12 문삼섭, "상표법" 세창출판사 2002

13 송영식, "상표법" 한빛지적소유권센터 1994

14 나종갑, "미국상표법연구" 한남대학교출판부 2005

15 정영환, "대법원판례해설, 제33호" 법원도서관 2000

16 김병일, "기타 식별력이 없는 상표의 상표 등록 허용 여부" 한국지식재산학회 (24) : 235-272, 2007

17 渋谷達紀, "知的財産法講義 III(第2版)" 有斐閣 2008

18 小野昌延, "注解 商標法(新版)(上卷)" 靑林書院 2005

19 小野昌延, "新⋅商標法解說(第2版)" 靑林書院 2013

20 網野 誠, "商標(第6阪)" 有斐閣 2002

21 정태호, "OVA상표법" 춘추문화사 2012