본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

슬로건 상표의 식별력의 판단기준에 관한 연구 -한국과 미국의 판례를 중심으로-

The Test for the Inherent Distinctiveness of Slogans -A Comparative Study on Korean and U.S. Cases-

박준우
한국상사판례학회 (The Korea Commercial Cases Association)|2008.06|상사판례연구 (Commercial Cases Review)|제21권 제2호|pp. 307-327

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

상표trademark슬로건sloganinherent distinctiveness고유한 식별력사용에 의한 식별력의 획득암시표장기술표장distinctiveness acquired through usesuggestive markdescriptive mark.
주제분류법학

초록

The topic of this article is the protection of slogans as trademarks in Korea. The issue is what the test for the inherent distinctiveness of slogans should be. To find out the answer to the issue, this article examines the U.S. court cases in the sixties and seventies which had developed the test and considerations to determine a slogan to be inherently distinctive. After extensive cases studies of U.S. experiences, this article concludes as follows. First, in determining distinctiveness, slogans should be observed in its entirety. Second, slogans with a double meaning may be distinctive, if the double meaning is strong enough to make the slogan function as a source indicator of the goods. Third, slogans with rhyming or alliteration may be distinctive, if they sound phonetically fanciful. Fourth, slogans are distinctive if they are informational in an indirect or obscure way. Fifth, descriptive slogans can also be distinctive, if, through use, they acquire secondary meaning and function as a source indicator of the goods or services.

Abstract

The topic of this article is the protection of slogans as trademarks in Korea. The issue is what the test for the inherent distinctiveness of slogans should be. To find out the answer to the issue, this article examines the U.S. court cases in the sixties and seventies which had developed the test and considerations to determine a slogan to be inherently distinctive. After extensive cases studies of U.S. experiences, this article concludes as follows. First, in determining distinctiveness, slogans should be observed in its entirety. Second, slogans with a double meaning may be distinctive, if the double meaning is strong enough to make the slogan function as a source indicator of the goods. Third, slogans with rhyming or alliteration may be distinctive, if they sound phonetically fanciful. Fourth, slogans are distinctive if they are informational in an indirect or obscure way. Fifth, descriptive slogans can also be distinctive, if, through use, they acquire secondary meaning and function as a source indicator of the goods or services.

참고문헌 (54)

  1. 나종갑, "미국상표법연구" (2006), 글누리
  2. 문삼섭, "상표법" (2004), 세창출판사
  3. Martin J. Beran, "Protection of Slogans in the Patent Office and the Courts", Trademark Rep, 57(219) (1967)
  4. Evynne Grover, "he Trademark Protection of Advertising Slogans: A Modern Perspective", Media & Intell. Prop. L.F, (213) (1991)
  5. Julius R., "Distinctive Packages and Slogans Are Registrable on the Principal Register", Trademark Rep, 45(1131) (1955)
  6. J. Thomas McCarthy, "McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property", ~ (1995)
  7. Roger E. Schechter, "Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights" (2003), Patents and Trademarks
  8. Cameron K. Wehringer, "Slogans-Tests as Trademarks", J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 781, 42(781) (1960)
  9. 대법원, "11.29 선고 2005후2793 판결", ~ (2007)
  10. 대법원, "5.25 선고 2004후912 판결", ~ (2006)
  11. 대법원, "7.11 선고 2001후3863 판결", ~ (2003)
  12. 대법원, "2.28 선고 96후979 판결", ~ (1997)
  13. 대법원, "12.22 선고 94후555 판결", ~ (1994)
  14. 대법원, "11.18 선고 94후173 판결", ~ (1994)
  15. 대법원, "9.27 선고 94후906 판결", ~ (1994)
  16. 대법원, "4.23 선고 92후1943 판결", ~ (1993)
  17. 대법원, "1.20 선고 86후85 판결", ~ (1987)
  18. 특허법원, "8.25 선고 2005허3895 판결", ~ (2005)
  19. 특허심판, "4.4 자 2004원5271 심결", ~ (2005)
  20. American Express Co., "Goetz, 515 F.3d 156", ~ (2008)
  21. "In re Boston Beer Co. Ltd. Partnership, 198 F.3d 1370", ~ (1999)
  22. "In re Burger King of Florida, Inc., 136 U.S.P.Q. 396", ~ (1963)
  23. "In re David Crystal, Inc., 145 U.S.P.Q. 95", ~ (1965)
  24. "Ex parte The Dot Line Company, 111 U.S.P.Q. 353", ~ (1956)
  25. "Application of E. Kahn's Sons, Co., 343 F.2d 475", ~ (1965)
  26. "In re Esslinger's, Inc., 123 U.S.P.Q. 236", ~ (1959)
  27. "Frosty Treats Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., 426 F.3d 1001", ~ (2005)
  28. "Ex parte Gulf States Paper Corporation, 101 U.S.P.Q. 464", ~ (1954)
  29. "In re The Hallicrafters, Co., 153 U.S.P.Q. 376", ~ (1967)
  30. "학술지 학술대회 논문 단행본 보고서 학위논문 인터넷자원 기타 Ex parte Hayden's, Inc., 114 U.S.P.Q. 506", ~ (1957)
  31. "Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., 238 F.3d 1357", ~ (2001)
  32. "In re International Silk Association, Inc., 152 U.S.P.Q. 779", ~ (1967)
  33. "In re Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co., 129 U.S.P.Q. 329", ~ (1961)
  34. "In re Juvenile Shoe Corporation of America, 122 U.S.P.Q. 214", ~ (1959)
  35. "Application of Kopy Kat, Inc., 498 F.2d 1379", ~ (1974)
  36. "Ex parte KTTV Inc., 111 U.S.P.Q. 349", ~ (1956)
  37. "In re Lincoln Park Van Lines, 149 U.S.P.Q. 313", ~ (1966)
  38. "Application of Marriott Corp., 517 F.2d 1364", ~ (1975)
  39. "Application of Marriott Corp., 184 U.S.P.Q. 53", ~ (1974)
  40. "In re National Tea Co., 144 U.S.P.Q. 286", ~ (1965)
  41. "Ex parte Norquist Products, Inc, 109 U.S.P.Q. 399", ~ (1956)
  42. "Packman v. Chicago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628", ~ (2001)
  43. "In re Pilgrim Book Society, Inc. 149 U.S.P.Q. 658", ~ (1966)
  44. "Application of Preformed Line Products Co., 359 F.2d 907", ~ (1966)
  45. "Application of Preformed Line Products Co., Inc., 323 F.2d 1007", ~ (1963)
  46. "Ex parte The Pure Oil Co., 99 U.S.P.Q. 19", ~ (1953)
  47. "Ex parte Redmond Co., 117 U.S.P.Q. 484", ~ (1958)
  48. "Ex parte Robbins & Myers, Inc., 104 U.S.P.Q. 403", ~ (1955)
  49. "Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol, Inc., 427 F.2d 823", ~ (1970)
  50. "In re Scoville, Brown & Co., 122 U.S.P.Q. 327", ~ (1959)
  51. "TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation--Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of Creator, 297 F.3d 662", ~ (2002)
  52. "Vincent v. City Colleges of Chicago, 485 F.3d 919", ~ (2007)
  53. "Ex parte W. H. Hutchinson, 111 U.S.P.Q. 244", ~ (1956)
  54. "Application of Wisconsin Wire Works, 291 F.2d 958", ~ (1961)

관련 논문AI추천

상표 사용에 의한 식별력 취득 인정의 판단기준에 대한 소고: 식별력 취득 요건 완화 10년 후의 판결·심결을 중심으로엄태민한국지식재산연구원 · 지식재산연구2024 · 제19권 제4호결합상표의 기술성 판단에 관한 실무상쟁점들의 비교법적인 고찰정태호과학기술법연구원 · 과학기술법연구2016 · 제22권 제1호사용에 의하여 식별력을 취득한 상표에 관한 주요 쟁점 연구이해완법학연구원 · 성균관법학2011 · 제23권 제1호Revisiting Acquired Distinctiveness under the Korean Trademark Act: The Evolution of Judicial and Administrative Standards after the 2014 Reform엄태민한국법제연구원 · Korea Legislation Research Institute Journal of Law and Legislation2025 · 제15권 제1호패러디 상표의 비상업적 사용 인정 기준에 관한 연구 – 미국 로저스 테스트 축소 동향을 중심으로 –심석찬법학연구소 · 홍익법학2025 · 제26권 제2호미국 판례법상 상표의 오인, 혼동 판단조영선사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2004 · 제53권 제10호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)

영업양도의 「同一性 要件」 검토 - 대상판결: 대법원 2007.6.1. 선고, 2005다5812, 5829, 5836 판결 -안수현pp. 3-50분식결산과 이사의 손해배상책임 - 대법원 2007.9.20. 선고 2007다25865 판결을 중심으로 -손영화pp. 51-95회사기회의 법리와 우리나라의 해석론, 입법방안에 대한 제안김홍기pp. 99-131적대적 M&A에 대한 방어수단으로서의 테뉴어 보팅(“Tenure Voting”)에 관한 미국판례 - 대상판결 : Williams v. Geier, 671 A. 2d 1368 (Del. 1996) -김광록pp. 133-162會社分割에 있어 債權者와 少數株主의 保護하창효pp. 163-205
원문 보기