색채 자체의 상표로서의 출원 및 등록적격성에 관한 비교법적 고찰 = Comparative Analysis for the Application Requirements and Registrability of Color per se as a Trademark

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The use of color by business to identify their products is increasing. If a color functions to identify a product or service and distinguish it from other products or services, there seems no reason why it should not be afforded trademark protection. Recently a trademark which comprises a single color or a combination of colours has become the subject of registration in Korea by the revision of Korean Trademark Act in 2006. However, regarding the application requirements and the registrationist of color alone as a trademark remains considerable issues to debate.
This article is to review on the application requirements and registrability of 'color per se' as a trademark by the comparative analysis for the American and EU trademark system. This article studies not only Lanham Act and TMEP but also EU Directive and Regulation on the requirements of registration(distinctive character, secondary meaning, non-functionality) of 'color per se' as a trademark. In order to refer them to Korean trademark system properly, United States Court cases including Qualitex v. Jacobson Prods and ECJ case of In Libertel Groep v. Benelux Merkenbureau and BOA cases are discussed or examined. Concerns also exist over the potential difficulties in the ability to obtain an accurate picture of the colors and the application requirements including the standards to be used to define or identify the color. For example, color identification by reference to the Pantone Matching System could provide an objective means to identify and facilitate searching.
Finally, a proposal on the desirable directions for the future operation of the Korean trademark rules and regulations regarding the color alone as a trademark.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서설
• Ⅱ. 미국에서 색채의 상표로서의 보호
• Ⅲ. EU에서의 색채상표보호 현황
• Ⅳ. 결어
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 서강열, "색채상표의 국제적 보호현황, 미국의 대법원 판례를 중심으로(상)(하)" (53) : 1999

2 정재훈, "색채상표 ―색채만으로 구성된 상표의 등록가능성을 중심으로―" 28 : 1998

3 이대희, "미국의 판례에 나타난 새로운 유형의 상표: 색채상표를 중심으로" 한국지적소유권학회 3 : 1999

4 배대헌, "단일색채의 상표등록 여부에 관한 검토 ― Qualitex 사건판결을 중심으로" 1 (1): 2006

5 노동일, "色彩商標의 도입가능성" 大韓辯護士協會 23 : 1995

6 "ln re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 227 U.S.P.Q.417" 1985

7 Lawrence B. Ebert, "Trademark Protection In Color: Do It By Numbers!" 1994

8 "Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure(“TMEP 8th ed. 2005”)"

9 Laura R. Visitine, "The Registrability Of Color Per Se As A Trademark After Qualitex Co. V. Jacobson Products Co., 40 ST. LOUIS U. L. J., 611"

10 David B. Tongg, "The Qualitex Quandary: Was Trademark Protection For Color Per Se Clearly Resolved?, U. HAW. L. REV., 445" 1996

11 Mitchell M.Wong, "THE AESTHETIC FUNCTIONALITY DOCTRINE AND THE LAW OF TRADE-DRESS PROTECTION, Cornell Law Review May" 1998

12 "Russell Harrington Cutlery Inc. v. Zivi Hercules Inc., 25 USPQ2d 1965"

13 "R.L. Winston Rod Co. v. Sage Mfg. Co., 838 F. Supp. 1396, 29 USPQ2d 1779"

14 Daniel C. Hudock, "Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.: Color Receives Trademark Protection And The Courts Receive Confusion, 16 J.L. & COM"

15 "Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 166-74, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1161, 1164-67" 1995

16 Kevin M. Jordan, "Qualitex C. v. Jacobson Products Co., The Unanswered Question - Can Color Ever Be Inherently Distinctive? TRADEMARK REP. 371" 1995

17 Tomas P. Arden, "Protection of Nontraditional Marks, International Trademark Association(INTA)" 2000

18 Jeffrey M. Samuels, "Protection For Color Under U.S. Trademark Law, 23 AIPLA Q.J. 129, 148"

19 "OHIM Second BoA, February 29,2000, Case R342/1999-2"

20 "OHIM First BoA, January 25,2000, Case R136/1999-1"

21 Stafano Sandri, "Non-conventional Trade Marks and Community Law" 2003

22 "Kasco Corp. v. Southern Saw Service Inc., 27 USPQ2d 1501"

23 "In re WM. Wrigley Jr. Co., OHIM Third BoA, Dec.18,1998, Case R122/1998-3, 31 IIC 329"

24 "In re Ty Nant Spring Water Ltd., OHIM Third BoA, July 20,1999, Case R5/1999-3, 31 IIC 1010"

25 "In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 61 USPQ2d 1121, 1124" 2001

26 "In re Star Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 225 USPQ 209"

27 "In re Pollak Steel Co., 314 F.2d 566, 136 USPQ 651"

28 "In re Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd., OHIM Third BoA, Feb. 12, 1998, Case R7/1997-3,30 IIC 197"

29 "In re Orange Communications, Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1036"

30 "In re International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., 183 F.3d 1361, 1368, 51 USPQ2d 1513, 1517-18" 1999

31 "In re Hudson News Co., 39 USPQ2d 1915 (TTAB 1996), aff’d per curiam, 114 F.3d 1207"

32 "In re Hozelock Ltd., OHIM Second BoA, June 19. 1999, Case R208/1998-2,31 IIC 1007"

33 "In re Howard S. Leight & Associates Inc., 39 USPQ2d 1058"

34 "In re Hayes, 62 USPQ2d 1443"

35 "In re Ferris Corporation, 59 USPQ2d 1587"

36 "In re Deere & Co., 7 USPQ2d 1401"

37 "In re Chemical Dynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 5 USPQ2d 1828"

38 "In re Benetton Group S.p.A., 48 USPQ2d 1214"

39 "In re American Home Products Corp., 226 USPQ 327"

40 "In Windsurfing Chiemsee, C108&109/97)"

41 "In Libertel Groep v Benelux Merkenbureau, ECJ case C-104/01"

42 "Fabrication Enters. v. Hygenic Corp., 64 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 1995); Kasco Corp. v. Southern Saw Service, lnc., 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1501, 1504"

43 "Edward Weck Inc. v. IM Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1142"

44 "Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 35 F.3d 1527, 32 USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1050"

45 "Anthony V. Lupo, The Pink Panther Sings The Blues: Is Color Capable Of Trademark Protection?, 1 FED. CIRCUIT B.J., 47" 1991

46 "AIPPI Agenda for Congress in Geneva in 2004, Q 181"