Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Prior-use service mark and breach of good faith in registration
Supreme Court, Nov. 5, 2020, 2020Hu10827 (judgment)
Case name: 등록무효(상)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a publisher transferred its stock of books, publication rights and the right of use in the sign 'Cheongmun-gak' under a business assignment contract, and later filed and registered a service mark identical with that sign, was the registration contrary to the principle of good faith and therefore invalid under Article 7(1)(xviii) of the former Trademark Act, and does the same rule apply to service marks?
Holding
Yes, and the same rule applies to service marks. Article 7(1)(xviii) of the former Trademark Act denies registration where a person, knowing through a partnership, employment, business transaction or other relationship that another uses or is preparing to use a mark, files an identical or similar mark for identical or similar goods in breach of good faith towards that other person. Whether the article applies is decided by weighing together the internal relationship between the other person and the applicant, the specific content of any contract, the circumstances in which the prior-use mark was developed, selected and used, and who has controlled its use or managed the nature or quality of the goods. Here the assignment contract transferred the stock of books, publication rights, the key staff and the trade contacts, the parties agreed to attribute the right of use in the sign 'Cheongmun-gak' to the assignee, and that right was ultimately transferred on to his son, so the registrant's filing breached good faith.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
구 상표법 제7조 제1항 제18호에 해당하는지 여부는, 타인과 출원인의 내부 관계, 계약이 체결된 경우 해당 계약의 구체적 내용, 선사용상표의 개발·선정·사용 경위, 선사용상표가 사용 중인 경우 그 사용을 통제하거나 선사용상표를 사용하는 상품의 성질 또는 품질을 관리하여 온 사람이 누구인지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether a case falls under Article 7 (1) 18 of the former Trademark Act must be determined by comprehensively taking into account the internal relationship between another person and the applicant, the specific details of the contract where a contract has been concluded, the circumstances under which the prior-used mark was developed, selected, and used, and who has controlled the use of the prior-used mark where the mark is in use, or has managed the nature or quality of the goods on which the prior-used mark is used, and other factors.
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
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
구 상표법 제7조 제1항 제18호에 해당하는지 여부는, 타인과 출원인의 내부 관계, 계약이 체결된 경우 해당 계약의 구체적 내용, 선사용상표의 개발·선정·사용 경위, 선사용상표가 사용 중인 경우 그 사용을 통제하거나 선사용상표를 사용하는 상품의 성질 또는 품질을 관리하여 온 사람이 누구인지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether a case falls under Article 7 (1) 18 of the former Trademark Act must be determined by comprehensively taking into account the internal relationship between another person and the applicant, the specific details of the contract where a contract has been concluded, the circumstances under which the prior-used mark was developed, selected, and used, and who has controlled the use of the prior-used mark where the mark is in use, or has managed the nature or quality of the goods on which the prior-used mark is used, and other factors.
Factors
- 타인과 출원인의 내부 관계
- 계약이 체결된 경우 해당 계약의 구체적 내용
- 선사용상표의 개발·선정·사용 경위
- 선사용상표가 사용 중인 경우 그 사용을 통제하거나 선사용상표를 사용하는 상품의 성질 또는 품질을 관리하여 온 사람이 누구인지
- 갑과 을은 위 양도계약을 통하여 ‘청문각’이라는 표장의 사용 권원을 을에게 귀속시키기로 합의하였으며
Unofficial English translation
• the internal relationship between another person and the applicant
• the specific details of the contract where a contract has been concluded
• the circumstances under which the prior-used mark was developed, selected, and used
• who has controlled the use of the prior-used mark where the mark is in use, or has managed the nature or quality of the goods on which the prior-used mark is used
• A and B agreed, through the above assignment contract, to attribute to B the right to use the mark 'Cheongmungak', and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 9. 3. 선고 2019후10739 판결(공2020하, 2037)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2019Hu10739 decided September 3, 2020 (Gong 2020 Ha, 2037)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2020. 9. 3. 선고 2019후10739 판결(공2020하, 2037)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the assignment contract says nothing expressly about the right to use the sign, what evidence is enough to show that the right was attributed to the assignee?
The judgment of the Patent Court on remand, once it weighs the internal relationship, the contract terms and the circumstances of use, will show how this test works in fact. An amendment to the Trademark Act, in particular to Article 34(1)(xx), or a later Supreme Court decision revising the criterion, 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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the assignment contract says nothing expressly about the right to use the sign, what evidence is enough to show that the right was attributed to the assignee?” vs Independent “How should good faith be assessed if an asset transfer agreement expressly reserves concurrent use of the mark to the transferor?”
The primary reading asks what evidence shows the right was attributed to the assignee when the contract is silent, while the independent reading asks how good faith is judged when the contract expressly reserves concurrent use to the transferor.
구 상표법 제7조 제1항 제18호에 해당하는지 여부는, 타인과 출원인의 내부 관계, 계약이 체결된 경우 해당 계약의 구체적 내용, 선사용상표의 개발·선정·사용 경위, 선사용상표가 사용 중인 경우 그 사용을 통제하거나 선사용상표를 사용하는 상품의 성질 또는 품질을 관리하여 온 사람이 누구인지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단해야 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 22 May 2020 (2019Heo5829), held that the business assignment contract of 28 November 2012 could not be regarded as a contract for the transfer of a business, and that the prior-use service mark was not one that a person other than the defendant was using or preparing to use. It therefore found that the registered service mark did not fall within Article 7(1)(xviii) of the former Trademark Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the contract transferred the defendant's stock of books, publication rights, the key staff and the trade contacts needed to keep the publishing business going, that the defendant and the assignee agreed under it to attribute the right of use in the sign 'Cheongmun-gak' to the assignee, and that the right was ultimately transferred on to the plaintiff, who registered the business under the name 'Cheongmun-gak Chulp'an' and has published and sold the books ever since. It held that the defendant, knowing that the assignee or the plaintiff used and controlled the sign, had breached good faith towards them by registering an identical or similar service mark for identical or similar services, so that the registration was invalid. The court below had misread Article 7(1)(xviii) in a way that affected its decision, so the judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Patent Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- An assignment contract that does not transfer the stock, publication rights, the key staff and the trade contacts, so that it cannot be read as transferring the business as a going concern.
- A case in which the right of use in the sign is not agreed to pass to the assignee, so that the applicant remains the user of the sign.
- A prior-use sign that is not used or being prepared for use on services identical with or similar to those of the registered mark, since the article requires identical or similar services.
Record verification notes
Read the assignment contract clause by clause for the transfer of stock, publication rights, staff, trade contacts and any statement on the right to use the sign, and then trace that right to whoever holds it at the filing date. Check also whether the registrant knew of the assignee's or the plaintiff's use, since knowledge through the transaction is part of the article. Finally confirm which version of the Trademark Act governs, because this decision applies the former Act, with the corresponding provisions now in Article 2(1)(i) and Article 34(1)(xx).
From the official text
Points at issue
[1]구 상표법 제7조 제1항 제18호의 규정 취지 및 위 규정에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 / 이러한 법리는 서비스표의 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용되는지 여부(적극) [2] ‘청문각출판사’라는 상호로 교재출판업 등을 영위하면서 선사용서비스표 ‘’을 출처 표시로 사용하는 갑이 청문각출판사의 재고도서와 출판권 등의 자산을 을에게 양도하였고, 그 후 병이 이를 포괄적으로 양수하여 ‘청문각출판’이라는 상호로 청문각출판사에서 출판하던 도서들을 출판, 판매하고 있는데, 갑이 서비스표인 ‘’을 출원하여 등록을 받자, 병이 갑을 상대로 위 등록서비스표가 구 상표법 제7조 제1항 제18호에 해당한다는 이유로 등록무효심판을 청구하였으나 특허심판원이 이를 기각하는 심결을 한 사안에서, 갑이 ‘청문각’이라는 표장과 동일·유사한 서비스표를 동일·유사한 서비스에 출원하여 등록서비스표로 등록받은 것은 을 또는 병에 대한 관계에서 신의성실의 원칙에 위반되므로, 갑의 위 등록서비스표는 구 상표법 제7조 제1항 제18호에 해당되어 그 등록이 무효로 되어야 한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purport of Article 7 (1) 18 of the former Trademark Act and the criteria for determining whether a case falls under the above provision / Whether the same legal principle applies equally in the case of service marks (affirmative) [2] A case in which A, who operated the textbook publishing business, etc. under the trade name 'Cheongmungak Publishing Company' and used the prior-used service mark '' as an indication of source, transferred to B the stock of books and the publishing rights and other assets of Cheongmungak Publishing Company, and thereafter C comprehensively succeeded thereto and has published and sold, under the trade name 'Cheongmungak Publishing', the books that had been published by Cheongmungak Publishing Company; whereupon, upon A filing an application for the service mark '' and obtaining registration thereof, C filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration against A on the ground that the above registered service mark falls under Article 7 (1) 18 of the former Trademark Act, but the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a decision dismissing the petition, in which the Court held that A's having filed an application for, and obtained registration as a registered service mark of, a service mark identical or similar to the mark 'Cheongmungak' in respect of identical or similar services is contrary to the principle of good faith in relation to B or C, and therefore the above registered service mark of A falls under Article 7 (1) 18 of the former Trademark Act and its registration must be invalidated
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 상표법(2016. 2. 29. 법률 제14033호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제7조 제1항 제18호는 동업·고용 등 계약관계나 업무상 거래관계 또는 그 밖의 관계를 통하여 타인이 사용하거나 사용을 준비 중인 상표임을 알면서 그 상표와 동일·유사한 상표를 동일·유사한 상품에 등록출원한 상표에 대해서는 상표등록을 받을 수 없다고 규정하고 있다. 위 규정의 취지는, 타인과의 계약관계 등을 통해 타인이 사용하거나 사용 준비 중인 상표(이하 ‘선사용상표’라고 한다)를 알게 된 사람이 타인에 대한 관계에서 신의성실의 원칙에 위반하여 선사용상표와 동일·유사한 상표를 동일·유사한 상품에 등록출원한 경우 그 상표등록을 허용하지 않는다는 데에 있다. 구 상표법 제7조 제1항 제18호에 해당하는지 여부는, 타인과 출원인의 내부 관계, 계약이 체결된 경우 해당 계약의 구체적 내용, 선사용상표의 개발·선정·사용 경위, 선사용상표가 사용 중인 경우 그 사용을 통제하거나 선사용상표를 사용하는 상품의 성질 또는 품질을 관리하여 온 사람이 누구인지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단해야 한다. 이러한 법리는 서비스표의 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용된다. [2]‘청문각출판사’라는 상호로 교재출판업 등을 영위하면서 선사용서비스표 ‘’을 출처 표시로 사용하는 갑이 청문각출판사의 재고도서와 출판권 등의 자산을 을에게 양도하였고, 그 후 병이 이를 포괄적으로 양수하여 ‘청문각출판’이라는 상호로 청문각출판사에서 출판하던 도서들을 출판, 판매하고 있는데, 갑이 서비스표인 ‘’을 출원하여 등록을 받자, 병이 갑을 상대로 위 등록서비스표가 구 상표법 제7조 제1항 제18호에 해당한다는 이유로 등록무효심판을 청구하였으나 특허심판원이 이를 기각하는 심결을 한 사안에서, 위 양도계약은 갑의 재고도서와 출판권 및 기존 출판영업을 계속적으로 유지하기 위한 주요 직원과 거래처를 을에게 이전하는 것을 내용으로 하고 있고, 갑과 을은 위 양도계약을 통하여 ‘청문각’이라는 표장의 사용 권원을 을에게 귀속시키기로 합의하였으며, 이후 위 표장의 사용 권원은 최종적으로 을로부터 병에게 이전되었다고 볼 수 있는 점 등에 비추어, 갑이 ‘청문각’이라는 표장과 동일·유사한 서비스표를 동일·유사한 서비스에 출원하여 등록서비스표로 등록받은 것은 을 또는 병에 대한 관계에서 신의성실의 원칙에 위반되므로, 갑의 위 등록서비스표는 구 상표법 제7조 제1항 제18호에 해당되어 그 등록이 무효로 되어야 하는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
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
[1] 구 상표법(2016. 2. 29. 법률 제14033호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제3항(현행 제2조 제1항 제1호 참조), 제7조 제1항 제18호(현행 제34조 제1항 제20호 참조) [2] 구 상표법(2016. 2. 29. 법률 제14033호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제3항(현행 제2조 제1항 제1호 참조), 제7조 제1항 제18호(현행 제34조 제1항 제20호 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