단행본 서적의 제호의 상표 보호에 관한 연구 -‘어린왕자’를 둘러싼 논의와 관련하여-
Trademark Protection for Single Literary Titles
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The topic of this article is the trademark protection for single literary titles in Korea. The issue is whether a single literary title of a book, the copyright of which has already expired or is about to expire, can be protected as a trademark, or can be registered as a trademark. To find out the answer to the issue, this article examines court cases both in Korea and in the U.S., and some scholarly comments on the issue. After criticizing the opinion of the courts and scholars in both countries, this article concludes as follows: First, according to the Korea Supreme Court opinion, a registered mark, which acquired secondary meaning under article 6 paragraph 2 of Korea Trademark Act, preempts the application of article 51 paragraph 1 of the same act. This interpretation would result in the unreasonable limitation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. Second, the U.S. federal courts’ opinion that single literary titles are generic makes little sense when a title explains its book's content, directly or indirectly. Third, under the current Korea Trademark Act, the scope of a good does not have to be determined on the basis of the classifications of the Korea Patent Office. Fourth, the protection of a single literary title as a registered trademark is not desirable because of the risk of the abuse by a former copyright holder of the book, the copyright of which has already expired. Instead, unfair competition approach can provide a balance between the protection of a title as a source indicator and the use of the title by a third party without invoking likelihood of confusion.
Abstract
The topic of this article is the trademark protection for single literary titles in Korea. The issue is whether a single literary title of a book, the copyright of which has already expired or is about to expire, can be protected as a trademark, or can be registered as a trademark. To find out the answer to the issue, this article examines court cases both in Korea and in the U.S., and some scholarly comments on the issue. After criticizing the opinion of the courts and scholars in both countries, this article concludes as follows: First, according to the Korea Supreme Court opinion, a registered mark, which acquired secondary meaning under article 6 paragraph 2 of Korea Trademark Act, preempts the application of article 51 paragraph 1 of the same act. This interpretation would result in the unreasonable limitation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. Second, the U.S. federal courts’ opinion that single literary titles are generic makes little sense when a title explains its book's content, directly or indirectly. Third, under the current Korea Trademark Act, the scope of a good does not have to be determined on the basis of the classifications of the Korea Patent Office. Fourth, the protection of a single literary title as a registered trademark is not desirable because of the risk of the abuse by a former copyright holder of the book, the copyright of which has already expired. Instead, unfair competition approach can provide a balance between the protection of a title as a source indicator and the use of the title by a third party without invoking likelihood of confusion.
참고문헌 (35)
- 강기준, "가. 서적 등과 같이 창작물을 지정상품으로 하는 상표의 식별력 판단기준", 대법원판례해설, 통권 : 43호 (2002), 법원도서관
- 강동세, "지정상품이 서적 등인 상표 ‘관족법’이 기술적 표장에 해당하는지 여부", 대법원판례해설, 통권 : 37호 (2001), 법원도서관
- 나종갑, "미국상표법연구" (2006), 글누리
- 나종갑, "일반명칭과 이차적 의미: 자유·재산권·그 한계", 법조, 576 (2004), 법조협회
- 이동원, "서적 제호에 대한 상표권의 효력", 대법원판례해설, 통권 : 59호 (2005), 법원도서관
- 이동흡, "상표의 특별현저성,지적소유권에 관한 제문제(하)", 재판자료, 57 (1992), 한국법원행정처
- 이두형, "상표권의 효력과 그 제한", 지식재산21, 통권 : 82호 (2004), 특허청
- 이상정, "저작물의 제호의 보호에 관한 판례, 실무의 경향과 그 비판", 계간 저작권, (38) (1997), 저작권심의조정위원회
- 임규수, "서적(정기간행물 포함) 제호의 상표등록의 적격성에 관한 고찰", 지식재산21, 통권 : 64호 (2001), 특허청
- 최종식, "서적류의 제호와 상표의 관계", 지식재산21, 통권 : 63호 (2000)
- Harper, James E., "Single Literary Titles and Federal Trademark Protection: The Anomaly between the USPTO and Case Law Precedents", IDEA, 45통권 : 77 (2004)
- McCarthy, J. Thomas, "McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition vol.2.", ~ (2006)
- Schechter & Thomas, "Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights" (2003), Patents and Trademarks
- Vana, James L., "Single Work Titles and Group, Artist or Author Names: Registrability Revisited", TMR, 88(250) (1988)
- 대법원, "2005다22770 판결(영절하 사건)", ~ (2005)
- 대법원, "4.29 선고 2005도70 판결(탑블레이드 사건)", ~ (2005)
- 대법원, "9.24 선고 2003후1314 판결(화랑 사건)", ~ (2004)
- 대법원, "12.10 선고 2000후3395 판결(리눅스 사건)", ~ (2002)
- 대법원, "11.26 선고 2001후2283 판결(Red Sandra 사건)", ~ (2002)
- 대법원, "4.24 선고 2000후2149 판결(관족법 사건)", ~ (2001)
- 대법원, "2.23 선고 98다63674 판결(레고 사건)", ~ (2001)
- 대법원, "5.13 자 96마217 결정(재능교육 사건)", ~ (1996)
- 대법원, "9.26 선고 95다3381 판결(녹정기 사건)", ~ (1995)
- 대법원, "10.11 선고 91후707 판결(상가록 사건)", ~ (1991)
- 대법원, "4.23 선고 90후1321 판결(아카데미 사건)", ~ (1991)
- 대법원, "11.27 선고 90후410 판결(영어실력기초 사건)", ~ (1990)
- 대법원, "8.18 선고 86후190 판결(생활정보 사건)", ~ (1987)
- 대법원, "10.28 선고 85후75 판결(왕비열전 사건)", ~ (1986)
- 대법원, "11.30 자 79마364 결정(혼자사는여자 사건)", ~ (1979)
- 서울고법, "9.5 자 91라79 결정(애마부인 사건)", ~ (1991)
- 서울지법, "8.7 선고 2003카합1488 판결(TIFFANY 사건)", ~ (2003)
- In re Cooper, "254 F.2d 611 (C.C.P.A. 1958)", ~ (1958)
- Herbko International, "Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 64 U.S.P.Q.2D 1375", ~ (2002)
- "International Film Service Co. v. Associated Producers, Inc., 273 F. 585", ~ (1921)
- "Ex parte Cooper, 110 U.S.P.Q. 323", ~ (1956)