학술논문
정보 전달 상표의 식별력 판단에 대한 비판적 고찰
이용수 164
- 영문명
- Critical Study on Determining Distinctiveness of a Trademark Conveying Information
- 발행기관
- 충북대학교 법학연구소
- 저자명
- 정태호(Jung, Tae Ho)
- 간행물 정보
- 『과학기술과 법』제11권 제1호, 263~292쪽, 전체 30쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2020.06.30
6,400원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
The Supreme Court Decision 2016Hu526 Decided July 10, 2019 determined on denying distinctiveness of a trademark conveying information in ChargeNow Case and admitting that the combined mark “plug shaped figure + ChargeNow” was a descriptive trademark since the mark had no Exclusive adaptability in related business circles and related competitors had need of free use on the mark. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decided that Judgement of the lower court(the Patent Court Decision 2015Heo3993 Decided February 3, 2016) was reversed and the case was remanded to the Patent Court. The above Patent Court Decision had serious mistakes in determining distinctiveness of a trademark conveying information. Therefore, The above Patent Court Decision may cause unnecessary misunderstanding by such mistakes among patent attorneys dealing with trademark cases. Especially, the Patent Court should not have judged that a trademark should be also registered by deciding non-descriptive mark in Korea based on precedents of trademark registration in other countries. On the other hand, it is important to determine descriptiveness in Art.6 Para.1 Item.3 and Art.6 Para.1 Item.7 of Trademark Act on the whole of the marks as well as each component part for combined marks in this case. But this paper indicates that the Patent Court misunderstood the above principle of law in judging this case. We need to study concretely on several practical issues about determining descriptiveness of a trademark conveying information by considering this case s situation. In conclusion, this paper suggests reasonable interpretation directions for determining distinctiveness of a trademark conveying information after analyzing the problems on both decisions(the Supreme Court Decision 2016Hu526 and the Patent Court Decision 2015Heo3993) in ChargeNow case.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 이 사건 특허법원 판결의 구체적인 내용
Ⅲ. 이 사건 대법원 판결의 판시 내용
Ⅳ. 이 사건 판단에 대한 종합적인 비판
Ⅴ. 결론
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!