상표법 제6조 제1항 제7호의 적용범위

• 영문명: Application of Article 6 Paragraph 1 Item 7 of Trademark Act
• 발행기관: 세창출판사
• 저자명: 정지석(Jee-seok Chung)
• 간행물 정보: 『창작과 권리』2005년 가을호 (제40호), 53~79쪽, 전체 26쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2005.09.01

영문 초록

This paper is to review Patent Court Decision 2004 Heo3317 delivered on December 24, 2004 concerning the application of Article 6 Paragraph 1 Item 7 and the relationship with Article 6 Paragraph 2 of Trademark Act. Even though a trademark is seemed not to have distinctiveness considering objectively the concept itself or the relationship with the designated services, without considering the situation of use, in case where the trademark is remarkably recognized among consumers or traders, as a result the applier has broadly used the mark before the application, to denote the services related with someone's business, the trademark does not fall under Article 6 Paragraph 1 Item 7, and thus could be registered notwith- standing Paragraph 2 does not refer to Paragraph 1 Item 7 of Article 6 of Trademark Act.

목차

Ⅰ. 사건의 개요

Ⅱ. 식별력이 없는 상표(상표법 제6조 제1항 제7호)

Ⅲ. 사용에 의한 식별력의 취득(상표법 제6조 제2항)

Ⅳ. 상표법 제6조 제1항 제7호와 제2항의 관계

Ⅴ. 맺음말

Abstract

키워드

식별력 특별현저성 사용에 의한 식별력 스피드 011 공익성