Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Inadmissibility of an affirmative trial against another's registered mark
Supreme Court, Apr. 3, 2019, 2018Hu11698 (judgment)
Case name: 권리범위확인(상)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the mark to be confirmed is another person's registered mark, may its user be sued in an affirmative scope-of-right confirmation trial under Article 121 of the Trademark Act, and does a mark that omits the Korean transliteration of an English word remain the same mark by trade understanding?
Holding
It is inadmissible. A scope-of-right confirmation trial turns on a registered mark and an unregistered mark to be confirmed, so an affirmative trial directed at another person's registered mark denies the effect of a registered right outside the invalidation procedure and is inadmissible, even where the mark to be confirmed is identical or similar to the applicant's registered mark. That category covers not only a mark identical to the registered mark but also a variant which, by trade understanding, does not damage the identity of the sign as an identifier. Here the confirmation mark 'Reviness' omitted only the Korean transliteration of the defendant's registered mark, raised no new concept beyond the meaning of the English word and would be called 'Reviness' in the ordinary way by consumers and traders, so it was identical to that registered mark, and its goods were identical in the trade understanding to the designated goods 'medical fillers and dermatological fillers' of that mark.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
다른 사람의 ‘등록상표인 확인대상표장’에 대한 적극적 권리범위확인심판은 확인대상표장이 심판청구인의 등록상표와 동일 또는 유사하다고 하더라도 등록무효절차 이외에서 등록된 권리의 효력을 부인하는 결과가 되어 부적법하다.
Unofficial English translation
An affirmative adjudication on the scope of rights in relation to another person's 'subject mark of confirmation that is a registered trademark' is unlawful in that, even if the subject mark of confirmation is identical or similar to the registered trademark of the requester for adjudication, it results in denying the effect of the registered right outside of the trademark invalidation proceeding.
Disposition
Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기한다. 특허심판원이 2017. 11. 14. 2016당1614호 사건에 관하여 한 심결을 취소한다. 소송총비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed. The ruling rendered by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board on November 14, 2017 in Case 2016Dang1614 is canceled. The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
상표권의 권리범위확인심판은 등록된 상표를 중심으로 미등록상표인 확인대상표장이 적극적으로 등록상표의 권리범위에 속한다거나 소극적으로 이에 속하지 아니함을 확인하는 것이므로
Unofficial English translation
An adjudication on the scope of rights of a trademark right is to confirm, centering on the registered trademark, whether the subject mark of confirmation, which is an unregistered trademark, affirmatively falls within the scope of rights of the registered trademark or negatively does not fall therein, and therefore
Factors
- 확인대상표장이 심판청구인의 등록상표와 동일 또는 유사하다고 하더라도 등록무효절차 이외에서 등록된 권리의 효력을 부인하는 결과가 되어 부적법하다
- 등록된 상표와 동일한 상표는 물론 거래의 통념상 식별표지로서 상표의 동일성을 해치지 않을 정도로 변형된 경우도 포함된다
- 영문 단어 자체의 의미로부터 인식되는 관념 외에 한글의 결합으로 새로운 관념이 생겨나지 않고
- 일반 수요자나 거래자에게 통상적으로 등록상표 자체와 동일하게 호칭되는
Unofficial English translation
• Even if the subject mark of confirmation is identical or similar to the registered trademark of the requester for adjudication, it results in denying the effect of the registered right outside of the trademark invalidation proceeding, and thus is unlawful
• It includes not only a trademark identical to the registered trademark but also a case where it has been modified to such an extent as not to impair the identity of the trademark as an identifying indicator in trade custom
• Apart from the concept perceived from the meaning of the English word itself, no new concept arises from the combination with the Korean characters, and
• It is ordinarily pronounced in the same way as the registered trademark itself by ordinary consumers or traders
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1992. 10. 27. 선고 92후605 판결(공1992, 3302), 대법원 2014. 3. 27. 선고 2013후2316 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 92Hu605 decided October 27, 1992 (Gong 1992, 3302), Supreme Court Decision 2013Hu2316 decided March 27, 2014
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1992. 10. 27. 선고 92후605 판결(공1992, 3302), 대법원 2014. 3. 27. 선고 2013후2316 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the opponent's registration was granted after the applicant's own registration, does the affirmative confirmation trial remain inadmissible all the same?
Any decision that treats a variant raising a new concept, or a mark called differently by ordinary consumers, as falling outside the registered mark would change the identity analysis. A new finding on how consumers and traders call 'Reviness' and on the position of the two goods in the market would also call for a fresh reading, as would an amendment to Article 121 or Article 34(1)(vii) of the Trademark Act.
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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the opponent's registration was granted after the applicant's own registration, does the affirmative confirmation trial remain inadmissible all the same?” vs Independent “How much change in pronunciation or meaning would cause an abbreviated sign to lose identity with the registered trademark?”
The primary asks whether a later opponent registration changes the result. The independent asks how much change in pronunciation or meaning would end identity. These are different unresolved points.
다른 사람의 ‘등록상표인 확인대상표장’에 대한 적극적 권리범위확인심판은 확인대상표장이 심판청구인의 등록상표와 동일 또는 유사하다고 하더라도 등록무효절차 이외에서 등록된 권리의 효력을 부인하는 결과가 되어 부적법하다.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 21 September 2018 (2018Heo1264), did not dismiss the trial request as inadmissible. It went to the merits and held that the confirmation mark fell within the scope of the plaintiff's registered trademark, whose designated goods were cosmetic gels for use in beauty care contained in syringes in class 3 of the goods classification.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the Patent Trial Board erred in not dismissing the request and that the Patent Court overlooked the requirements for a valid scope-of-right confirmation trial and so misapprehended the governing law. It held that the confirmation mark was identical to the defendant's registered mark and that the goods were identical in the trade understanding to the designated goods 'medical fillers and dermatological fillers' of that mark, reversed the judgment below, cancelled the Patent Trial Board's decision of 14 November 2017 in the earlier trial case and placed the total costs of the proceedings on the plaintiff, by the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- A mark to be confirmed that is not registered, since the inadmissibility the Court found rests on the mark being another person's registered mark.
- A request that runs through the invalidation procedure, since a registered right may be denied in that procedure and not elsewhere.
- Goods whose attributes do not overlap with the designated goods, so that identity in the trade understanding cannot be shown as it was between hyaluronic acid preparations and fillers.
Record verification notes
Establish first who owns the mark to be confirmed and whether it is registered, since that decides admissibility before any comparison with the applicant's own mark. Then compare the two marks component by component, taking the point that the omitted transliteration raised no new concept, and set the goods' quality, purpose, shape, method of use, distribution channels and suppliers and consumers against each other. If the route is the invalidation procedure, this decision does not decide the outcome.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 다른 사람의 ‘등록상표인 확인대상표장’에 대한 적극적 권리범위확인심판이 적법한지 여부(소극) 및 이때 ‘등록상표인 확인대상표장’에 거래의 통념상 식별표지로서 상표의 동일성을 해치지 않을 정도로 변형된 경우도 포함되는지 여부(적극) / 확인대상표장이 영문자와 이를 단순히 음역한 한글이 결합된 등록상표 부분 중 어느 한 부분을 생략하였으나 영문 단어와 한글의 결합으로 새로운 관념이 생겨나지 않고, 일반 수요자 등에게 등록상표와 동일하게 호칭되는 경우, 등록상표와 동일성이 인정되는지 여부(적극) [2] 지정상품을 ‘상품류 구분 제3류의 주사기에 담긴 미용관리과정에 사용되는 화장용 겔’로 하는 등록상표 “”의 상표권자 갑 외국회사가 확인대상표장 “”의 사용권자 을 주식회사를 상대로 확인대상표장이 자신의 등록상표와 동일·유사하여 자신의 등록상표의 권리범위에 속한다며 적극적 권리범위확인심판을 청구한 사안에서, 확인대상표장이 을 회사의 등록상표 “”와 동일하므로 위 심판청구는 을 회사의 등록상표가 갑 회사의 등록상표의 권리범위에 속한다는 확인을 구하는 적극적 권리범위확인심판으로서 부적법하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether an affirmative adjudication on the scope of rights in relation to another person's 'subject mark of confirmation that is a registered trademark' is lawful (negative), and whether, in such case, the 'subject mark of confirmation that is a registered trademark' also includes a case where it has been modified to such an extent as not to impair the identity of the trademark as an identifying indicator in trade custom (affirmative) / Where the subject mark of confirmation omits one part among the parts of a registered trademark consisting of a combination of English letters and Korean characters merely transliterating those letters, but no new concept arises from the combination of the English word and the Korean characters and it is pronounced in the same way as the registered trademark by ordinary consumers and others, whether identity with the registered trademark is recognized (affirmative) [2] In a case where foreign company A, the trademark owner of the registered trademark "" designating 'cosmetic gel used in a beauty care procedure contained in a syringe of Class 3 of the classification of goods', filed against B Corporation, the user of the subject mark of confirmation "", an affirmative adjudication on the scope of rights, claiming that the subject mark of confirmation was identical or similar to its registered trademark and therefore fell within the scope of rights of its registered trademark, and the request was held unlawful as an affirmative adjudication on the scope of rights seeking confirmation that B Corporation's registered trademark fell within the scope of rights of company A's registered trademark, on the ground that the subject mark of confirmation was identical to B Corporation's registered trademark ""
Summary of the holding
[1] 상표권의 권리범위확인심판은 등록된 상표를 중심으로 미등록상표인 확인대상표장이 적극적으로 등록상표의 권리범위에 속한다거나 소극적으로 이에 속하지 아니함을 확인하는 것이므로, 다른 사람의 ‘등록상표인 확인대상표장’에 대한 적극적 권리범위확인심판은 확인대상표장이 심판청구인의 등록상표와 동일 또는 유사하다고 하더라도 등록무효절차 이외에서 등록된 권리의 효력을 부인하는 결과가 되어 부적법하다. 이때 ‘등록상표인 확인대상표장’에는 등록된 상표와 동일한 상표는 물론 거래의 통념상 식별표지로서 상표의 동일성을 해치지 않을 정도로 변형된 경우도 포함된다. 확인대상표장이 영문자와 이를 단순히 음역한 한글이 결합된 등록상표에서 영문자 부분과 한글 음역 부분 중 어느 한 부분을 생략한 형태로 되어 있더라도, 영문 단어 자체의 의미로부터 인식되는 관념 외에 한글의 결합으로 새로운 관념이 생겨나지 않고, 일반 수요자나 거래자에게 통상적으로 등록상표 자체와 동일하게 호칭되는 한 이는 등록상표와 동일성이 인정되는 상표이다. [2] 지정상품을 ‘상품류 구분 제3류의 주사기에 담긴 미용관리과정에 사용되는 화장용 겔’로 하는 등록상표 “”의 상표권자 갑 외국회사가 확인대상표장 “”의 사용권자 을 주식회사를 상대로 확인대상표장이 자신의 등록상표와 동일·유사하여 자신의 등록상표의 권리범위에 속한다며 적극적 권리범위확인심판을 청구한 사안에서, 확인대상표장은 을 회사의 등록상표 “” 중 한글 음역 부분을 생략한 형태로 되어 있으나 한글 ‘리바이네스’의 결합으로 새로운 관념이 생겨나지 않고, 일반 수요자나 거래자에게 통상적으로 ‘리바이네스’로 동일하게 호칭될 것으로 보여 거래통념상 을 회사의 등록상표와 동일성 있는 상표에 해당하고, 확인대상표장의 사용상품인 ‘히알루론산을 성분으로 하는 주름개선제, 보습제, 피부탄력제’는 을 회사의 등록상표의 지정상품 중 ‘의료용필러, 피부과용필러’와 거래통념상 동일성 있는 상품에 해당하여, 결국 확인대상표장이 을 회사의 등록상표와 동일하므로, 위 심판청구는 을 회사의 등록상표가 갑 회사의 등록상표의 권리범위에 속한다는 확인을 구하는 적극적 권리범위확인심판으로서 부적법함에도, 이와 달리 본안으로 나아가 확인대상표장이 갑 회사의 등록상표의 권리범위에 속한다고 본 원심판결에 법리를 오해한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기한다. 특허심판원이 2017. 11. 14. 2016당1614호 사건에 관하여 한 심결을 취소한다. 소송총비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed. The ruling rendered by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board on November 14, 2017 in Case 2016Dang1614 is canceled. The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상표법 제34조 제1항 제7호, 제121조 [2] 상표법 제34조 제1항 제7호, 제121조
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