부정경쟁방지법에 의한 디자인의 상표적 보호 -2013년도 대법원 판결을 중심으로-
Trademark Protection for Designs under the Unfair Competition Law
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The topic of this article is the trademark protection for designs under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (UCPA). UCPA Article 2 Paragraphs Ga to Da protects marks or names which indicate sources. Therefore, 2 or 3 dimensional designs of products, containers, and packages can be protected as source-indications, only if they are distinctive and famous in Korea. However, as the original function of designs is not indicating sources, they do not have ‘inherent distinctiveness.’ Thus they need to show ‘distinctiveness acquired by use’ for protection. Designs would already have become famous in Korea by the time they became distinctive. There were three Supreme Court cases which determined trademark protection of designs; ‘Cook Book Cover case,’ ‘Portmerion case,’ and ‘Louis Vuitton case.’ In those cases, the Supreme Court held on the major three issues in protecting designs as source-indications; the source-indicating function of the plaintiff’s design, the source-indicating use of the plaintiff’s design by the defendant, and the conflict between the unfair competition right of a famous mark and the registered design right of that mark. Requiring source-indicating use for both subject matter and infringement condition functions as a safeguard against attempts to monopolize the market itself beyond indications of sources, and to monopolize ideas or designs which lacks non-obviousness, secrecy nor creativeness.
Abstract
The topic of this article is the trademark protection for designs under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (UCPA). UCPA Article 2 Paragraphs Ga to Da protects marks or names which indicate sources. Therefore, 2 or 3 dimensional designs of products, containers, and packages can be protected as source-indications, only if they are distinctive and famous in Korea. However, as the original function of designs is not indicating sources, they do not have ‘inherent distinctiveness.’ Thus they need to show ‘distinctiveness acquired by use’ for protection. Designs would already have become famous in Korea by the time they became distinctive. There were three Supreme Court cases which determined trademark protection of designs; ‘Cook Book Cover case,’ ‘Portmerion case,’ and ‘Louis Vuitton case.’ In those cases, the Supreme Court held on the major three issues in protecting designs as source-indications; the source-indicating function of the plaintiff’s design, the source-indicating use of the plaintiff’s design by the defendant, and the conflict between the unfair competition right of a famous mark and the registered design right of that mark. Requiring source-indicating use for both subject matter and infringement condition functions as a safeguard against attempts to monopolize the market itself beyond indications of sources, and to monopolize ideas or designs which lacks non-obviousness, secrecy nor creativeness.
참고문헌 (32)
- 윤선희, "상표법 제2판" (2014), 법문사
- 윤선희, "부정경쟁방지법" (2012), 法文社
- 박태일, "전체 표장에 대한 디자인권 및 이를 구성하는 개별 도형들에 대한 상표권과 전체 표장의 사용으로 인한 상표권침해 및 부정경쟁행위 사이의 충돌에 관한 연구 - 대상판결: 대법원 2013. 3. 14. 선고 2010도15512 판결 -", IT와 법연구, (8), pp.31~81 (2014), IT와 법연구소
- "Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition", ~ (1995)
- Roger E. Schechter, "Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights" (2003), Patents and Trademarks
- "대법원 2013.4.25. 선고 2012다41410 판결(요리서적 시리즈 사건)", ~ (2013)
- 2010, "대법원 2013.3.28. 선고 2010다58261 판결(포트메리온 도자기 사건)", ~ (2013)
- "대법원 2013.3.14. 선고 2010도15512 판결(루이비똥 가방 사건)", ~ (2013)
- "대법원 2013.2.14. 선고 2011도13441 판결(버버리 남방셔츠 사건)", ~ (2013)
- "대법원 2013.1.24. 선고 2011다18802 판결(강아지 펜던트 사건)", ~ (2013)
- "대법원 2012.11.29. 선고 2011도10978 판결(DRICORE 사건)", ~ (2012)
- "대법원 2012.5.9. 선고 2010도6187 판결(불로 막걸리 용기 사건)", ~ (2012)
- "대법원 2012.3.29. 선고 2010다20044 판결(주몽", 대장금-헬로키티 사건), 2012
- "대법원 2011.1.13. 선고 2010도5994 판결(EBS 교재 사건)", ~ (2011)
- "대법원 2008.10.9. 선고 2007후2834 판결(페라가모 구두 사건)", ~ (2008)
- "대법원 2008.9.11. 자 2007마1569 결정(K2 등산용품 사건)", ~ (2008)
- "대법원 2007.7.13. 선고 2006도1157 판결(종이리필방향제 사건)", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 2007.6.15. 선고 2005다48246 판결(CARLIFE 사건)", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 2007.6.14. 선고 2006도8958 판결(캠브리지 멤버스 사건)", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 2006.04.13. 선고 2003도7827 판결(Camerino 사건)", ~ (2006)
- "대법원 2005.10.7. 선고 2004후1458 판결(척주동해비 사건)", ~ (2005)
- "대법원 2005.6.10. 선고 2005도1637 판결(소니 리모콘 사건)", ~ (2005)
- "대법원 2004.10.28. 선고 2003후2027 판결(쌍학침대 사건)", ~ (2004)
- "대법원 2004.10.15. 선고 2004도5034 판결(퓨마 반지 사건)", ~ (2004)
- "대법원 2003.10.10. 선고 2002다63640 판결(WINDOWS 다이어리 사건)", ~ (2003)
- "대법원 2003.2.14. 선고 2002후1324 판결(가구 손잡이 사건)", ~ (2003)
- "대법원 2001.10.12. 선고 2001다44925 판결(원통형 청소기 사건)", ~ (2001)
- "대법원 2001.7.13. 선고 2001도1355 판결(에어클리너 사건)", ~ (2001)
- "대법원 2000.12.26. 선고 98도2743 판결(아디다스 슬리퍼 사건)", ~ (2000)
- "대법원 2000.5.12. 선고 98다49142 판결(비제바노 사건)", ~ (2000)
- "대법원 1997.2.14. 선고 96도1424 판결(가필드 봉제완구 사건)", ~ (1997)
- "서울중앙지방법원 2003.8.7. 선고 2003카합1488 판결(티파니 사건)", ~ (2003)