Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
A refusal ground absent from the rejection decision needs a fresh notice
Supreme Court, Nov. 12, 2020, 2017Hu1779 (judgment)
Case name: 거절결정(상)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a ground was notified during examination of a trademark application but was not made a ground in the rejection decision, must the Patent Trial Board notify it afresh under Articles 81 and 23 of the former Trademark Act before using it as a reason for the trial decision, and may it dismiss the appeal against the rejection decision on that unnotified ground on the basis that the decision was correct in result?
Holding
In principle, yes. A ground notified at examination but not made a ground in the rejection decision is a ground different from the reasons of the rejection decision in the trial proceeding, so it can be used as a reason for the trial decision only if it is notified afresh under Articles 81 and 23 of the former Trademark Act, unless special circumstances show that the trial requester was in substance given an opportunity to submit opinions and to amend. Those provisions protect the procedural rights of the applicant or trial requester and uphold the credit of the examination and trial systems, and are mandatory provisions grounded in the public interest. A trial decision that dismisses the appeal against the rejection decision on such an unnotified ground, on the basis that the decision was correct in result, is therefore unlawful.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 위 규정에 따라 거절이유 통지를 하지 아니한 채 거절결정의 이유와 다른 거절이유를 들어서 거절결정이 결과에 있어 정당하다는 이유로 거절결정불복심판청구를 기각한 심결은 위법하다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, a ruling that dismissed a request for adjudication against a decision refusing registration on the ground that the decision refusing registration is justified in its result, by relying on a ground for refusal different from the reason for the decision refusing registration without giving notification of grounds for refusal as required by the above provisions, is unlawful.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 특허법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
심사 단계에서 미리 거절이유를 통지한 사유라고 하더라도 그 사유를 거절결정에서 거절이유로 삼지 않았다면 이와 같은 사유는 거절결정에 대한 심판절차에서는 ‘거절결정의 이유와 다른 거절이유’에 해당하므로, 심판 단계에서 심판청구인이 위 사유에 대해 실질적으로 의견서 제출 및 보정의 기회를 부여받았다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이를 심결의 이유로 하기 위해서는 구 상표법 제81조, 제23조에 따라 다시 그 사유에 대해 거절이유를 통지하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a ground, even though notification of grounds for refusal had been given in advance at the examination stage, was not adopted as a ground for refusal in the decision refusing registration, such a ground falls within 'a ground for refusal different from the reason for the decision refusing registration' in an adjudication proceeding against a decision refusing registration, and accordingly, unless there are special circumstances that would justify regarding the requestor for adjudication as having been given a substantial opportunity to submit observations and make corrections with respect to that ground at the adjudication stage, notification of grounds for refusal must be given anew for that ground under Articles 81 and 23 of the former Trademark Act in order to make it a reason for the ruling.
Factors
- 심사 단계에서 미리 거절이유를 통지한 사유라고 하더라도 그 사유를 거절결정에서 거절이유로 삼지 않았다면
- 실질적으로 의견서 제출 및 보정의 기회를 부여받았다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한
- 거절이유를 미리 통지함으로써 그에 대한 의견서 제출 및 보정의 기회를 부여하여 출원인 또는 심판청구인의 절차적 권리를 보호하고
- 심사 및 심판의 적정을 기하여 심사 및 심판 제도의 신용을 유지하기 위한 공익상의 요구에 따른 강행규정이다
Unofficial English translation
• Where a ground, even though notification of grounds for refusal had been given in advance at the examination stage, was not adopted as a ground for refusal in the decision refusing registration,
• unless there are special circumstances that would justify regarding the requestor for adjudication as having been given a substantial opportunity to submit observations and make corrections,
• by giving prior notification of grounds for refusal, thereby affording an opportunity to submit observations and make corrections in response thereto, protecting the procedural rights of the applicant or the requestor for adjudication, and
• this is a mandatory provision pursuant to the public interest in ensuring the propriety of examination and adjudication and maintaining confidence in the examination and adjudication system
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
심판 단계에서 심판청구인이 위 사유에 대해 실질적으로 의견서 제출 및 보정의 기회를 부여받았다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이를 심결의 이유로 하기 위해서는 구 상표법 제81조, 제23조에 따라 다시 그 사유에 대해 거절이유를 통지하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Unless there are special circumstances that would justify regarding the requestor for adjudication as having been given a substantial opportunity to submit observations and make corrections with respect to that ground at the adjudication stage, notification of grounds for refusal must be given anew for that ground under Articles 81 and 23 of the former Trademark Act in order to make it a reason for the ruling.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances are enough to show that a trial requester was in substance given an opportunity to comment and amend on a ground, so that a fresh notice of grounds is not required?
The Patent Court's judgment on remand will show how the requirement of a fresh notice is worked out in a case where the ground was resolved before the rejection decision. A later decision that relies on Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu1997 in a comparable posture, or any amendment to Articles 55 and 123 of the Trademark Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the ruling as setting a new standard, while the independent reading could not confirm any precedent; the input text cites no precedent, so the two readings differ on whether the ruling departs from prior law or restates it.
심판 단계에서 심판청구인이 위 사유에 대해 실질적으로 의견서 제출 및 보정의 기회를 부여받았다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이를 심결의 이유로 하기 위해서는 구 상표법 제81조, 제23조에 따라 다시 그 사유에 대해 거절이유를 통지하여야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Patent Court, in its judgment of 6 July 2017 (2017Heo2215), held that the refusal ground relating to prior registration No. 6 was a matter on which the plaintiff had in substance been given an opportunity to submit opinions and to amend, and that the trial decision therefore contained no procedural illegality. It dismissed the plaintiff's claim to set the trial decision aside.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law on notice of grounds at the trial stage, and that this error affected its judgment. The plaintiff's amendment had removed the service item conflicting with prior registration No. 6, so the examiner did not make it a ground of the rejection decision and the plaintiff did not raise it as a ground of the appeal; the Patent Trial Board therefore had to notify it afresh and give an opportunity to comment and amend, and it dismissed the appeal against the rejection decision without doing so. Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu1997, cited below, was factually different and not suitable to be applied, and the Court reversed and remanded without ruling on the remaining grounds, on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A ground that the examiner's rejection decision itself made a ground for refusal, so that it is not a ground different from the reasons of the rejection decision.
- A case in which special circumstances show that the trial requester was in substance given an opportunity to submit opinions and to amend on that ground in the trial proceeding.
- A trial decision that does not rest on the unnotified ground as a reason for dismissing the appeal against the rejection decision.
Record verification notes
Set the ground named in the trial decision against the grounds listed in the rejection decision, and against the amendment history, to see whether the ground had already been resolved and dropped. Then look at the file for anything showing that the trial requester could in substance comment and amend on that ground in the trial proceeding, since the exception turns on that. Finally check which version of the Act governs: the Trademark Act wholly amended by Act No. 14033 of 29 February 2016 and now in Articles 55 and 123, since the decision applied the earlier text.
From the official text
Points at issue
상표출원에 대한 심사 단계에서 미리 거절이유를 통지한 사유라도 그 사유를 거절결정에서 거절이유로 삼지 않은 경우, 거절결정에 대한 심판절차에서 이를 심결의 이유로 하기 위해서는 구 상표법 제81조, 제23조에 따라 다시 그 사유에 대해 거절이유를 통지하여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) 및 위 규정에 따라 거절이유 통지를 하지 아니한 채 거절결정의 이유와 다른 거절이유를 들어서 거절결정이 결과에 있어 정당하다는 이유로 거절결정불복심판청구를 기각할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in order to make a ground a reason for the ruling in an adjudication proceeding against a decision refusing registration, notification of grounds for refusal must be given anew for that ground under Articles 81 and 23 of the former Trademark Act, where the ground, even though notification of grounds for refusal had been given in advance at the examination stage, was not adopted as a ground for refusal in the decision refusing registration (affirmative in principle), and whether a request for adjudication against a decision refusing registration may be dismissed on the ground that the decision refusing registration is justified in its result, by relying on a ground for refusal different from the reason for the decision refusing registration, without giving notification of grounds for refusal as required by the above provisions (negative)
Summary of the holding
구 상표법(2016. 2. 29. 법률 제14033호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제23조, 제81조에 의하면, 상표출원에 대한 심사 단계에서 거절결정을 하려면 그에 앞서 출원인에게 거절이유를 통지하여야 하고, 거절결정에 대한 특허심판원의 심판절차에서 거절결정의 이유와 다른 사유로 거절결정이 정당하다고 하려면 먼저 그 사유에 대해 거절이유를 통지하도록 하고 있다. 위 규정에 따른 거절이유 통지를 받은 출원인 또는 심판청구인은 의견서 제출기간 내에 통지된 거절이유에 대한 의견서를 제출할 수 있고, 거절이유에 나타난 사항에 대하여 보정을 하여 거절이유를 해소할 수도 있다. 심사 단계에서 미리 거절이유를 통지한 사유라고 하더라도 그 사유를 거절결정에서 거절이유로 삼지 않았다면 이와 같은 사유는 거절결정에 대한 심판절차에서는 ‘거절결정의 이유와 다른 거절이유’에 해당하므로, 심판 단계에서 심판청구인이 위 사유에 대해 실질적으로 의견서 제출 및 보정의 기회를 부여받았다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이를 심결의 이유로 하기 위해서는 구 상표법 제81조, 제23조에 따라 다시 그 사유에 대해 거절이유를 통지하여야 한다. 위 규정은 거절이유를 미리 통지함으로써 그에 대한 의견서 제출 및 보정의 기회를 부여하여 출원인 또는 심판청구인의 절차적 권리를 보호하고, 심사 및 심판의 적정을 기하여 심사 및 심판 제도의 신용을 유지하기 위한 공익상의 요구에 따른 강행규정이다. 따라서 위 규정에 따라 거절이유 통지를 하지 아니한 채 거절결정의 이유와 다른 거절이유를 들어서 거절결정이 결과에 있어 정당하다는 이유로 거절결정불복심판청구를 기각한 심결은 위법하다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 특허법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
Provisions referred to
구 상표법(2016. 2. 29. 법률 제14033호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제23조(현행 제55조 참조), 제81조(현행 제123조 참조)
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger