상표 ‘REVANESSE’의 권리범위확인심판청구의 기각에 대하여

• 영문명: A Case Study Regarding Korean Supreme Court Case No. 2018HU11698 for Declaratory Judgement of ‘Reviness ’ over ‘REVANESSE’
• 발행기관: 세창출판사
• 저자명: 최덕규(Dukkyu Choi)
• 간행물 정보: 『창작과 권리』2020년 여름호 (제99호), 2~17쪽, 전체 16쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2020.06.01

영문 초록

A Canadian company, Prollenium, is the owner of a Korean trademark registration for “REVANESSE” in class 03 (cosmetic gel in prefilled syringes for use in cosmetic treatment procedures) . Later, a Korean company, BR Pharm, had used ‘Reviness ’ on the same products. According to the Korean practice and regulations, Prollenium filed a trial for declaratory judgement on infringement of ‘Reviness ’ over ‘REVANESSE’. The Trademark Office dismissed the trial, reasoning that the BR Pharm’s trademark ‘Reviness’ is not similar to the Prollenium’s registered trademark ‘REVANESSE’. Prollenium filed an appeal against the PTO’s decision before the Patent Court. The Court reversed the decision. The Court decided that the trademark ‘Reviness ’ is similar to the registered trademark ‘REVANESSE’. BR Pharm filed a petition with the Korean Supreme Court. BR Pharm alleged that the trial should have been dismissed because they had obtained a registration for ‘Reviness리바이네스’ (‘리바이네스’ is a Korean transliteration of ‘Reviness ’). The Supreme Court accepted BR Pharm’s allegations. However, the junior trademark of ‘Reviness리바이네스’ was filed after the trial was filed. In other words, the junior mark had not existed at the time of filing the trial of declaratory judgement over the senior mark. This is one of the worst decisions delivered by the Supreme Court.

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말

Ⅱ. 판결문

Ⅲ. 평 석

Ⅳ. 맺는 말

키워드

권리범위확인심판 선상표권 후상표권 개량발명 3심제 Trial for Declaratory Judgement Senior Trademark Junior Trademark Improvement (Improved Invention) Dreiinstanzensystem