Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Unjust purpose in a trademark application and settled prior litigation
Supreme Court, Dec. 1, 2022, 2020Hu11622 (judgment)
Case name: 거절결정(상)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When deciding whether an applicant for trademark registration had the 'unjust purpose' under Article 34(1)(xiii) of the Trademark Act, must the courts take into view, without contradiction, the settled civil or administrative litigation between the applicant and the prior user over the mark, the business built on it and the related administrative permissions or registrations, and do the facts found in those judgments stand as strong evidence?
Holding
They must be. Whether an applicant had an unjust purpose under Article 34(1)(xiii) of the Trademark Act is decided by weighing together the degree of recognition and originality of the prior mark, the degree of identity or similarity between the two marks, whether the parties negotiated over the mark and what those negotiations were, the parties' other relations, whether the applicant concretely prepared a business using the applied-for mark, the identity or similarity of the goods and their economic linkage, and trade circumstances. Because that provision exists to stop the abuse of the first-to-file system by imitating a mark in which another's business credit or reputation is already embodied, and because the intellectual property statutes must be read as one harmonious legal order, a series of settled lawsuits between the applicant and the prior user over the mark and the business built on it must be taken into account without contradiction, and facts found in those final judgments are strong evidence unless there are special circumstances.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
출원인과 선사용상표를 사용해온 특정인 사이에 그 상표 및 상표를 기반으로 한 사업체, 관련 행정상의 인허가 또는 등록 등을 둘러싸고 여러 차례 민사소송이나 행정소송 등이 확정되었다면 이러한 일련의 경위와 결과는 ‘부정한 목적’의 해석에서 모순되지 않도록 고려되어야 하며, 위 확정된 민사소송 등의 판결에서 인정된 사실은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 유력한 증거가 된다.
Unofficial English translation
Where, between the applicant and a particular person who has used a prior used mark, civil actions or administrative litigation and the like have been finally determined on several occasions with regard to that mark, business entities based on the mark, related administrative permits or registrations, and so forth, such a series of circumstances and results must be taken into account in the interpretation of the 'unfair purpose' so as not to be contradictory, and the facts found in the judgments of the finally determined civil actions and the like become strong evidence absent special circumstances.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 보조참가로 인한 부분을 포함하여 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal, including the portion arising from the intervention.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
특정인의 상표의 인지도 또는 창작성의 정도, 특정인의 상표와 출원인의 상표의 동일·유사성의 정도, 출원인과 특정인 사이의 상표를 둘러싼 교섭의 유무와 그 내용, 기타 양 당사자의 관계, 출원인이 출원상표를 이용한 사업을 구체적으로 준비하였는지, 상품의 동일·유사성 내지는 경제적 견련관계 유무, 거래실정 등을 종합적으로 고려하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
The degree of recognition or the degree of creativity of the particular person's mark, the degree of identity or similarity between the particular person's mark and the applicant's mark, whether there were negotiations between the applicant and the particular person concerning the mark and the content thereof, and the relationship between the two parties, whether the applicant concretely prepared to conduct business using the applied-for mark, whether the goods are identical or similar, or whether there is an economic connection, trade circumstances, and the like must be comprehensively taken into account
Factors
- 특정인의 상표의 인지도 또는 창작성의 정도
- 특정인의 상표와 출원인의 상표의 동일·유사성의 정도
- 출원인과 특정인 사이의 상표를 둘러싼 교섭의 유무와 그 내용, 기타 양 당사자의 관계
- 출원인이 출원상표를 이용한 사업을 구체적으로 준비하였는지
- 상품의 동일·유사성 내지는 경제적 견련관계 유무, 거래실정 등을 종합적으로 고려하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• The degree of recognition or the degree of creativity of the particular person's mark
• The degree of identity or similarity between the particular person's mark and the applicant's mark
• Whether there were negotiations between the applicant and the particular person concerning the mark and the content thereof, and the relationship between the two parties
• Whether the applicant concretely prepared to conduct business using the applied-for mark
• Whether the goods are identical or similar, or whether there is an economic connection, trade circumstances, and the like must be comprehensively taken into account
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2014. 1. 23. 선고 2013후1986 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Hu1986 decided January 23, 2014
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2014. 1. 23. 선고 2013후1986 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances are capable of taking a fact found in a final judgment out of the category of strong evidence on the applicant's unjust purpose?
A later Supreme Court decision that qualifies the multi-factor test for unjust purpose or the weight of settled judgments would call for this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 34(1)(xiii) of the Trademark Act, or a record showing the special circumstances the decision left open.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 23 October 2020 (2020Heo2024), held that the prior mark had been widely recognised as the newspaper title and mark of Jeju Ilbo Co., Ltd. and the defendant's joinder participant among newspaper readers and traders in the Jeju area as at the filing date of the applied-for mark, 7 October 2015. Taking the series of circumstances the parties stood in, it found that the plaintiff, when filing, had an unjust purpose of riding on the fame and credit of the prior mark to gain an unjust benefit or to interfere with Jeju Ilbo Co., Ltd.'s right to publish its newspaper, and upheld the refusal decision.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. On the first ground it held that the appellate reasons did not overstep the limits of free evaluation or contain any inadequate inquiry, defect of reasons or misreading of law on whether the mark was recognised as designating another's goods. On the second ground it affirmed the settled test for unjust purpose, added that the settled litigation between applicant and prior user must be weighed without contradiction and that facts found in those final judgments are strong evidence unless there are special circumstances, and held that the court below had applied that law correctly. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal, with the costs, including the part arising from the joinder, on the plaintiff.
Distinguishing conditions
- A dispute in which no civil or administrative litigation between the applicant and the prior user has become final over the mark, the business built on it or the related permissions and registrations, since the additional weighing applies to a series of settled cases.
- A case in which special circumstances reduce the force of the facts found in those final judgments, since the Court made the evidential value subject to that qualification.
- A mark that was not widely recognised as designating the prior user's goods at the filing date, since the first ground of the refusal must first be made out.
Record verification notes
Set the filing date, here 7 October 2015, and ask first whether the prior mark was widely recognised in the relevant market at that date. Then list each final judgment between the applicant and the prior user with what it actually found, since those findings carry evidential weight unless special circumstances are shown, and keep the multi-factor test separate: recognition and originality, similarity, negotiations and their content, other relations, concrete business preparation, the goods and trade circumstances.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 출원상표의 출원인에게 상표법 제34조 제1항 제13호에 규정된 ‘부정한 목적’이 있는지 판단하는 방법 [2] 출원인과 선사용상표를 사용해온 특정인 사이에 그 상표 및 상표를 기반으로 한 사업체, 관련 행정상의 인허가 또는 등록 등을 둘러싸고 여러 차례 민사소송이나 행정소송 등이 확정된 경우, 이러한 일련의 경위와 결과는 상표법 제34조 제1항 제13호의 ‘부정한 목적’의 해석에서 모순되지 않도록 고려되어야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 위 확정된 민사소송 등의 판결에서 인정된 사실이 유력한 증거가 되는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Method for determining whether the applicant of the applied-for mark has an 'unfair purpose' as prescribed in Article 34, paragraph (1), subparagraph 13 of the Trademark Act [2] Where, between the applicant and a particular person who has used a prior used mark, civil actions or administrative litigation and the like have been finally determined on several occasions with regard to that mark, business entities based on the mark, related administrative permits or registrations, and so forth, whether such a series of circumstances and results must be taken into account in the interpretation of the 'unfair purpose' under Article 34, paragraph (1), subparagraph 13 of the Trademark Act so as not to be contradictory (affirmative), and whether the facts found in the judgments of the finally determined civil actions and the like become strong evidence at that time (affirmative in principle)
Summary of the holding
[1] 출원상표의 출원인에게 상표법 제34조 제1항 제13호에 규정된 부정한 목적이 있는지 판단함에 있어서는 특정인의 상표의 인지도 또는 창작성의 정도, 특정인의 상표와 출원인의 상표의 동일·유사성의 정도, 출원인과 특정인 사이의 상표를 둘러싼 교섭의 유무와 그 내용, 기타 양 당사자의 관계, 출원인이 출원상표를 이용한 사업을 구체적으로 준비하였는지, 상품의 동일·유사성 내지는 경제적 견련관계 유무, 거래실정 등을 종합적으로 고려하여야 한다. [2] 상표법은 상표를 보호함으로써 상표 사용자의 업무상 신용 유지를 도모하여 산업발전에 이바지하고 수요자의 이익을 보호함을 입법 목적으로 하여 상표권 등록과 사용, 관련 쟁송 등을 규정하고 있다. 위와 같은 상표법 등 지식재산권 관련 법령은 전체 법질서 안에서 조화롭게 해석·적용되어야 한다. 상표법 제34조 제1항 제13호는 이미 특정인의 영업상 신용이나 명성이 체화된 상표를 모방하여 출원함으로써 선출원주의에 따른 상표제도를 악용하는 것을 방지하기 위한 규정으로, 그 요건인 ‘부정한 목적’의 해석·적용 역시 전체 법질서와 조화를 이루어야 한다. 출원인과 선사용상표를 사용해온 특정인 사이에 그 상표 및 상표를 기반으로 한 사업체, 관련 행정상의 인허가 또는 등록 등을 둘러싸고 여러 차례 민사소송이나 행정소송 등이 확정되었다면 이러한 일련의 경위와 결과는 ‘부정한 목적’의 해석에서 모순되지 않도록 고려되어야 하며, 위 확정된 민사소송 등의 판결에서 인정된 사실은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 유력한 증거가 된다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 보조참가로 인한 부분을 포함하여 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal, including the portion arising from the intervention.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상표법 제34조 제1항 제13호 [2] 상표법 제34조 제1항 제13호
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