기술표장 판단에 관한 심판 및소송의 문제점 -특허법원 사건 2015허3771 판결을 중심으로-

• 영문명: Review on Descriptive Mark at Appeal before Patent Appeal Board and Patent Court-In re Patent Court Case No. 2015HUR3771-
• 발행기관: 세창출판사
• 저자명: 최덕규(Duk kyu Choi)
• 간행물 정보: 『창작과 권리』2016년 봄호 (제82호), 64~72쪽, 전체 9쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2016.03.01

영문 초록

The appeals at the Korean Patent Appeal Board (KPAB) and the Korean Patent Court (KPC) have a serious problem in determining registrability between descriptive and suggestive. In Patent Court Case No. 2015HUR3771, a mark “5 HOUR ENERGY” was decided as descriptive in connection with ‘health supplementary foods, dietary foods etc’ in class 5. The mark was registered in many English speaking countries because they decided the mark as suggestive rather than descriptive. Nonetheless, the mark was decided as descriptive in non-English speaking country, Korea. In order to decide whether a mark is descriptive or suggestive, we should decide whether the mark (the term) is or will be needed for a competitor to use the term to describe the characteristics of goods or not. In other words, if the term is necessary to deliver information on the goods, it should be decided as descriptive. If so, is the mark “5 HOUR ENERGY” necessary for a competitor to use the term to describe the characteristics of goods? The Korean Trademark Office and the Korean Patent Court answered ‘YES’. How stupid!

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말

Ⅱ. 사건의 절차경위

Ⅲ. 사건의 논점

Ⅳ. 특허심판원 심결의 문제점

Ⅴ. 특허법원 판결의 문제점

Ⅵ. 맺는 말

Abstract

키워드

기술표장 성질표시표장 암시표장 조어표장 경쟁업자 식별력 Descriptive mark Suggestive mark Coined mark Fanciful mark Competitors Distinctiveness