사용에 의하여 식별력을 취득한 상표에 관한 주요 쟁점 연구
The study on several main issues concerning 'a trademark made distinctive by use'
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Trademark Act Art. 6 (2) provides "Even though it falls under any paragraph (1) 3 through 6, a trademark which is recognized remarkably among consumers whose goods it indicates in connection with his/her business as a result of using the trademark before the application for trademark registration under Article 9, may be registered with any goods using the trademark as designated goods". Regarding this provision, there are several important issues which deserve to be rigorously debated. This article aims to deal with the issues. The conclusions are as follows. 1. In the cases of Trademark Act Art. 6 (1) 1 and Art. 6 (1) 2, there are possibilities that the ordinary name or the customarily used mark will lose its character and become someone's trademark. But it is not correct to say that in the cases the ordinary name or the customarily used mark can be made distinctive by use under the same requirements as Art. 6 (2). In contrast to the cases above, the trademark of Art. 6 (1) 7 can be made distinctive by use under the same requirements as Art. 6 (2). 2. In order to be made distinctive by use, the use is not required to be exclusive in the strict meaning, but needs to be substantially exclusive. 3. The time of judgment whether a trademark was made distinctive is not the time of application, but of decision about whether to register. But the applicant must establish the fact that he or she has used the trademark before the application. 4. The regional coverage of consumers' recognition as requirement of Art.6 (2) is the whole country. 5. Trademark Act Art. 51 (1) concerning the limitation of trademark right can be applied about 'a trademark made distinctive by use' by Art. 6 (2). But the interpretation of Art. 51 (1) needs to be adjusted to guarantee the prohibitive power of the trademark made distinctive by use within the reasonable scope. 6. The trademarks that lacked distinctiveness at the time of registration can not be effective even if they have become distinctive after the registration.
Abstract
Trademark Act Art. 6 (2) provides "Even though it falls under any paragraph (1) 3 through 6, a trademark which is recognized remarkably among consumers whose goods it indicates in connection with his/her business as a result of using the trademark before the application for trademark registration under Article 9, may be registered with any goods using the trademark as designated goods". Regarding this provision, there are several important issues which deserve to be rigorously debated. This article aims to deal with the issues. The conclusions are as follows. 1. In the cases of Trademark Act Art. 6 (1) 1 and Art. 6 (1) 2, there are possibilities that the ordinary name or the customarily used mark will lose its character and become someone's trademark. But it is not correct to say that in the cases the ordinary name or the customarily used mark can be made distinctive by use under the same requirements as Art. 6 (2). In contrast to the cases above, the trademark of Art. 6 (1) 7 can be made distinctive by use under the same requirements as Art. 6 (2). 2. In order to be made distinctive by use, the use is not required to be exclusive in the strict meaning, but needs to be substantially exclusive. 3. The time of judgment whether a trademark was made distinctive is not the time of application, but of decision about whether to register. But the applicant must establish the fact that he or she has used the trademark before the application. 4. The regional coverage of consumers' recognition as requirement of Art.6 (2) is the whole country. 5. Trademark Act Art. 51 (1) concerning the limitation of trademark right can be applied about 'a trademark made distinctive by use' by Art. 6 (2). But the interpretation of Art. 51 (1) needs to be adjusted to guarantee the prohibitive power of the trademark made distinctive by use within the reasonable scope. 6. The trademarks that lacked distinctiveness at the time of registration can not be effective even if they have become distinctive after the registration.
참고문헌 (25)
- Marc C. Levy, "FROM GENERICISM TO TRADEMARK SIGNIFICANCE: DECONSTRUCTING THE DE FACTO SECONDARY MEANING DOCTRINE", Trademark Rep, 95, pp.1197~ (2005)
- 강기중, "상표법 제6조 제1항 제7호와 같은 조 제2항의 관계 (2003. 7. 11. 선고 2001후2863 판결:공2003하, 1734)", 대법원판례해설, 통권 : 48 (2004), 법원도서관
- 강동세, "사용에 의한 식별력을 취득한 상표의 효력", 법조, 56(6), pp.102~140 (2007), 법조협회
- 계승균, "로스쿨 지적재산권법 - Cases & Explanations" (2010), 법문사
- 곽영목, "식별력 없는 상표의 '사용에 의한 식별력 취득' 요건과 그 판단 시점", 지식재산21, (107) (2009), 특허청
- 김대원, "사용에 의한 식별력 판단기준과 이에 의해 등록된 상표권의 효력 -상표법 제6조 제2항 관련-", 창작과 권리, (28) (2002), 한빛지적소유권센터
- 나종갑, "미국상표법연구" (2006), 글누리
- 網野誠, "商標" (1999), 有斐閣
- 문삼섭, "상표법" (2004), 세창출판사
- 박정화, "NET2PHONE으로 구성된 출원상표ㆍ서비스표가 기술적 표장인지의 여부 및 사용에 의한 식별력을 취득하였는지의 여부", 대법원판례해설, 통권 : 45 (2004), 법원도서관
- 박정희, "상표등록 당시 식별력이 미약하였던 부분이 그 후 사용에 의한 식별력을 취득한 경우, 식별력 있는 요부가 될 수 있는지 여부(2007. 12. 13. 선고 2005후728 판결:공2008상, 72)", 대법원판례해설, 통권 : 74 (2008), 법원도서관
- 박종태, "이지 상표법" (2010), 한빛지적소유권센터
- 사법연수원, "상표법" (2010)
- 송영식, "지적소유권법(하)" (2008), 육법사
- 이동흡, "상표의 특별현저성", 재판자료, 57 (1992), 법원도서관
- 이상경, "지적재산권소송법" (1998), 육법사
- 이인종, "상표법" (2006), 법경사 21c
- 이재문, "상표법 제6조 제2항과 제51조와의 관계", 지식재산21, (104) (2008), 특허청
- 임성규, "기술적 상표의 의의 및 상표법 제6조 제2항과 제51조 제2호의 관계", 대법원판례해설, (28) (1997), 법원도서관
- 정지석, "상표법 제6조 제1항 제7호의 적용범위", 창작과 권리, (40) (2005), 세창 출판사
- 최성우, "OVA 상표법(2010년 개정판)" (2010), 한국특허아카데미
- 최성준, "사용에 의한 식별력 취득에 관하여 - 특허법원 2006.10.11. 선고 2006허1841, 1797(병합), 1810(병합), 1865(병합) 판결", LAW & TECHNOLOGY, 2(6) (2006), 서울대학교 기술과법센터
- 특허법원 지적재산소송실무연구회, "지적재산 소송실무" (2010), 박영사
- 특허청, "조문별 상표법 해설" (2004)
- 황의창, "상표법" (2005), 단국대학교출판부
