상표이의신청제도 개선방안에 관한 연구

양대승 한국지식재산연구원 2013 지식재산연구 Vol.8 No.2

From 1973, Korea, following the examples of major industrialized countries, established a pre-registration opposition system for the purpose of granting stable rights. However, the shortening of product life cycles generated a stronger demand for the speedier granting of trademark registration. However, the percentage of opposition filing is relatively small in Korea. While the length of the average examination period in Korea exceeded those in other industrialized nations, only two or three percents of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) decisions of publication of application are filed an opposition filing. Nevertheless, a great many pending applications did not undergo examination for months. Such a situation was quite inappropriate. Therefore, with the revision of the trademark law, Korean pre-registration opposition system needs to be changed to a post-registration opposition system or to be integrated into invalidation trial system. The advantage deriving from transition to the post-registration opposition system is that applicants can more quickly obtain a right because they do not have to wait until the publication of the relevant trademark gazette or the expiration of the time limit for filing an opposition. However, the post-registration opposition system has many disadvantages. Where a trademark right is cancelled due to an opposition, the registration fee will not be returned to the applicant.Under a pre-registration opposition system, IP office can review a decision about whether to refuse an application after the publication of the examined trademark. Under a post-registration opposition system,on the other hand, the IP Office itself is not allowed to cancel an already-registered mark, even if a defect is found in the trademark during opposition period. However, a post-registration opposition is to be treated in the same way as an invalidation trial. Many of those who seek invalidation of a trademark right often might file a demand for an invalidation trial after filing an opposition. As a result, the same interested parties repeatedly might follow the KIPO procedures for reviewing a trademark right. Such a situation will be pointed out as causing a problem. That’s why the opposition system and the invalidation trial system were integrated in the field of patents in 2007. One of the main objectives of the Trademark Law is to protect consumers by preventing possible confusion resulting from the use of marks that are similar to/identical with registered trademarks. There are some who note the need for quick revocation (of deficient trademarks under the opposition system) that can be carried out in a procedure that is simpler than that of the invalidation trial system. In many cases, a conflict can be thoroughly tried under the opposition system, which is an ex-parte system, without the necessity for the conflict to be considered under the inter-parte invalidation trial system, taking into consideration such conditions as subject of protection and evidence to prove that the mark is revocable or invalid. Therefore, we are required to pay due attention to user needs when discussing integration of the opposition system and the invalidation trial system in the Trademark Law. 상표이의신청제도는 상표출원공고제도와 병존하는 제도로서, 출원공고된 상표등록출원에 대하여 이의가 있는 자는 누구든지 출원공고일로부터 2개월 이내에등록을 받을 수 없다는 이유를 들어서 거절결정을 요구할 수 있는 제도이다. 이러한 상표이의신청제도의 취지는 심사관의 주관적, 자의적 판단이나 실수 등에 대하여 공중심사기능을 도입함으로써 부실권리의 발생을 방지하고 심사의 객관성 및공정성을 제고하여 등록 후에 발생할 수 있는 상표분쟁을 미연에 예방하는 것이라고 할 수 있다. 하지만 이러한 안정적인 권리확보를 위한 공중심사기능과 같은 상표이의신청제도의 순기능에도 불구하고, 현행 상표이의신청제도는 상표등록 전에 운용되는절차이다 보니 신속한 상표권리를 원하는 출원인의 입장에서 볼 때는 다소 거추장스러운 하나의 걸림돌처럼 생각될 수도 있다. 특히 이러한 점은 특허청 통계자료에서도 확연히 나타나는데, 최근 3년간 상표출원공고건수 대비 이의신청률은3.1% 정도에 불과하기 때문이다. 즉 97%의 대다수 출원공고 상표는 이의신청이없음에도 불구하고 2개월의 이의신청 기간을 기다려야만 하기 때문에 조속한 상표권리화가 지연되는 결과를 초래하고 있다. 지식재산정보사회의 도래와 더불어 국가간·기업간 지식재산 분쟁이 증가하고그 양상 또한 복잡해짐에 따라 과거에는 외부로부터의 공세에 방어적으로 대응하기 위해 소극적인 지식재산 전략을 구사하던 기업들도 점차 지식재산권을 이윤창출의 유용한 도구로 인식하고 시장확보, 경쟁기업 견제 등을 이유로 지식재산권의조기권리화를 강하게 요구하고 있다. 이러한 세계경제시장환경 변화에 부응하여다른 주요국들도 자국 기업의 경쟁력 제고를 위한 조기권리화에 박차를 가하고 있는 실정이다. 특히 상표출원은 이미 상표를 사용 중이거나 상품출시와 동시에 하는 경우가 많기 때문에 특허 등 다른 산업재산권에 비해 조기권리화의 필요성이높다고 할 수 있다. 이러한 관점에서 볼 때 기업의 신속한 투자결정 및 안정적인사업화 기반을 마련할 수 있도록 상표등록절차를 정비할 필요가 있다고 할 것이다. 이에 필자는 조기권리화를 위한 제도개선의 일환으로 현행 등록 전 상표이의신청제도의 개선방안을 여러 가지 관점에서 조심스럽게 살펴보고자 한다. 이를 위해 프랑스와 일본 등 주요 외국의 상표이의신청제도를 검토하고 우리나라 특허법상의 이의신청제도와 무효심판제도를 참고함으로써, 우리 기업의 경쟁력 제고 및 수요자 중심기반의 상표이의신청제도 개선방안을 모색하고자 한다.

Association of Trial Registration with Reporting Biases in Randomized Controlled Trials of Acupuncture

김서연,원지윤,박히준,이향숙,Kim, Seoyeon,Won, Jiyoon,Park, Hi-Joon,Lee, Hyangsook Society for Meridian and Acupoint 2018 Korean Journal of Acupuncture Vol.35 No.2

Objectives : To investigate the association of trial registration status with presence of reporting bias including publication bias and outcome reporting bias in recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture. Methods : A PubMed search for RCTs of acupuncture published from March 2016 to February 2017 was conducted. Primary outcomes were identified and the direction of the results was judged as positive (i.e., statistically significant) or negative. The trial registration was identified by manually screening the trial registration number in the main text of the published article and classified into 1) prospective registration; 2) retrospective registration based on the registration date or; 3) no registration. Results : Of the 125 included RCTs, only 40 studies (32.0%) prospectively registered the study protocols. Among 65 RCTs that adequately reported the primary outcome, unregistered trials were more likely to report positive results than the registered ones (p=0.013). Of the 40 prospectively registered studies, 19 trials (47.5%) had the discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes and furthermore, 40% of them reported the positive findings. Conclusions : Unregistered trials were more likely to report positive results and the discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes were detected in about a half of the prospectively registered studies, 42.1% of which tended to report positive findings. Journal editors and researchers in this field should be alerted to various reporting biases.

Clinical trial registration and publication in acupuncture studies: a systematic review

Yuto Matsuura,Naomi Takazawa Welch,Tomomi Sakai,Kiichiro Tsutani 한국한의학연구원 2020 Integrative Medicine Research Vol.9 No.1

Background: To research 1) how many acupuncture clinical trials are registered with the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) and what patterns they demonstrate, 2) publication of the articles of acupuncture clinical trials which were registered with ICTRP. Methods: The search strategy using the ICTRP: Intervention: acupuncture; Recruitment status: All; Date of registration; from 1 Jan 1990 to 31 Dec 2018. We searched the indexed articles in PubMed using trial IDs on 25 Feb 2019. When the paper was published, we indicated the number of weeks from the date of registration with ICTRP to the date of publication in order to define time till the publication. We divided the whole period we analyzed into 6 periods of every 3 years and measured the proportion of publication and the time from the date of registration of each trial till its publication in each period by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Forty-three countries/areas conducted at least one acupuncture clinical trial. The total number of registrations was 1758. China, the USA, and the Republic of Korea accounted for 61% of those registrations. The proportion of publication was 178/1758 10% for the fully published papers and 141/1758 8% for the protocol papers. Conclusions: The substantial increase of registrations by China, the Republic of Korea, Iran, Brazil, Japan was observed which may be attributed to improved awareness of the CONSORT statement. However, the fully published papers rate is low at 10%. The publication of results of acupuncture clinical trials should also be rigorously mandated.

국내 임상연구등록시스템 구축 배경과 활성화 방안

박현영 대한의사협회 2011 대한의사협회지 Vol.54 No.1

Publication bias has a negative impact on the ability of healthcare providers and consumers to make unbiased healthcare decisions. The demand for greater transparency of clinical trials has increased and a prospective registry has been suggested by the International Com-mittee of Medical Journal Editors. By 2008, prospective registration was considered as an ethi-cal requirement within the Declaration of Helsinki. In Korea, the clinical research registry named ‘Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS)’ was recently established and became a data provider as a primary registry to the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform search portal. This means that CRIS conforms to the WHO registry criteria and that registering trials with the CRIS satisfies the trial registration policies of many medical journals. To improve the comprehensiveness and completeness of registered clinical research data, it is necessary to communicate and raise awareness of the need to register clinical trials, as well as to establish national policies on clinical trial registration.

상표법 제119조 제1항 제2호의 부정사용 판단에서의 역혼동의 적용 문제 - 특허법원 2021. 10. 8. 선고 2020허5597 판결에 대한 비판점을 중심으로 -

정태호(Jung, Taeho) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2021 법과기업연구 Vol.11 No.3

최근에 특허법원에서 선고된 특허법원 2020허5597 판결(이하, “대상판결”이라 함)은 상표법 제119조 제1항 제2호에서의 사용권자의 부정사용에 의한 취소심판 사건을 다루었다. 그러나 이 사건이 역혼동과 관련된 것이었음에도 불구하고 대상판결에서는 이에 대해서 구체적인 판단을 하지 않았다. 대상판결의 사안은 국내에서 선행 상표권자가 먼저 상표등록을 받고 사용한 이후에 후행 상표사용자가 국내에서 상표를 사용하여 자신의 사용상표에 대한 인지도를 취득한 것이었다. 그런데 대상판결은 국내의 수요자들이 선행 상표권자의 사용권자가 사용한 상표를 후행 상표사용자의 상표로 혼동을 일으키는 상황만 고려할 뿐, 이에 관한 역혼동을 고려하지 않고 상표법 제119조 제1항 제2호에서의 부정사용에 의한 취소심판 사건의 판단을 하였다. 기존에는 상표등록의 무효심판 사건과 상표권 침해 사건에 관해서만 국내에서 관련 판결이 존재하여 대상판결에 관하여 역혼동 적용 문제의 검토 필요성이 더욱 필요하다고 보인다. 특허법원에서의 대상판결은 역혼동을 구체적으로 고려하지 않은 판단을 하였으므로, 이에 관하여 대법원은 역혼동을 구체적으로 고려한 판결을 선고해줄 필요가 있다고 생각한다. 특히 외국의 글로벌 기업이 후발적으로 자신의 상표를 국내에 진입시켜 그 인지도에 의해 국내의 중소기업의 선등록상표의 실효성을 상실시키고 사실상 상표등록의 취소를 통한 중소기업의 상표의 탈취행위를 초래할 수 있다. 이러한 상황을 방지하기 위해 대법원은 역혼동을 고려하여 상표법 제119조 제1항 제2호에 관한 판단 법리를 판시해줄 필요가 있다. 결국 상표법 제119조 제1항 제2호에서의 부정사용에 의한 취소심판 사건에서 역혼동을 고려한 판단 법리를 대법원이 판시해줄 필요가 있다. 따라서 대상판결에 대한 상고심인 대법원 2021후11209 사건은 매우 중요한 케이스라고 볼 수 있다. Patent Court decision 2020Heo5597(hereinafter referred to as the “the subject decision”), which was recently sentenced by the Patent Court, dealt with the case of a trial for cancellation of trademark registration based on the licensee’s use for unlawful purposes in Article 119 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act. However, even though this case was related to reverse confusion, the subject decision did not make a specific determination on it. In the case of the subject decision, the preceding trademark right holder first obtained trademark registration and used it in Korea, and then the subsequent trademark user used the trademark in Korea to acquire recognition for his own trademark. By the way, the subject decision only considered the situation in which domestic consumers confuse the trademark used by the licensee of the preceding trademark right holder with the trademark of the subsequent trademark user and made the decision of a trial for cancellation of trademark registration based on the licensee’s use for unlawful purposes in Article 119 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act without considering the reverse confusion in this regard. Previously, relevant decisions exist only in cases of trademark registration invalidation trials and trademark right infringement in Korea, so it seems necessary to further review the issue of reverse confusion application for the subject judgment. Since the subject judgment in the Patent Court did not specifically consider reverse confusion, it is necessary for the Supreme Court to make a decision that specifically considers reverse confusion. In particular, foreign global companies may later enter their own trademarks into Korea and make domestic small and medium-sized enterprises lose the effectiveness of the pre-registered trademarks due to their recognition and in fact it may lead to the theft of small and medium-sized enterprises’ trademark through the cancellation of trademark registration. In order to prevent such a situation, the Supreme Court needs to judge the Legal principles for application of Article 119 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act in consideration of reverse confusion. In conclusion, it is necessary for the Supreme Court to decide on the the Legal principles in consideration of reverse confusion in the case of a trial for cancellation of trademark registration based on the licensee’s use for unlawful purposes in Article 119 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act. Therefore, the Supreme Court 2021Hu11209 case, which is the final appeal against the subject decision, can be considered a very important case.

상표제도 활성화를 위한 불사용 취소심판의 개선방안

심미랑(Shim, Mi Rang),김남경(Kim, Nam Kyung) 한국비교사법학회 2013 비교사법 Vol.20 No.4

등록주의를 취하고 있는 우리나라에서 상표권은 등록이라는 절차에 의해 권리가 발생하며 상표의 사용은 권리의 발생 요건이 아니다. 그러나 상표법은 상표 그 자체가 아닌 상표에 화체되어 있는 상표권자의 업무상 신용을 보호하고자 하며, 이러한 업무상 신용은 상표권자가 자신의 상표를 업무상 사용함으로써 형성되는 것이므로 사용하지 않는 등록상표에 대한 독점권을 인정해주는 것은 타인의 상표선택의 기회를 부당하게 제한하게 된다. 따라서 각 국은 상표법상 상표권자에게 소정의 사용의무를 부과하여 일정기간 이상의 불사용 행위에 대하여는 취소심판의 대상이 되도록 하는 규정을 두고 있다. 이러한 불사용 취소심판 제도는 그동안 그 본래의 목적을 달성하고자 여러 차례의 개정이 이루어졌으며, 특히 최근 2013년 개정법에서는 그동안 악용의 소지가 있었던 불사용 취소심판 청구인의 6개월의 우선출원권을 폐지하는 반면, 불사용 취소심판 청구인의 출원편의를 도모하기 위한 개정이 이루어졌다. 그러나 2013년 개정법규는 관련 규정이 지나치게 복잡하고 해석상 논란의 여지가 있으므로, 이에 대한 개선이 필요하다. 이를 위해 이 글에서는 불사용취소심판 제도에 대한 각 국의 현행 관련 법령, 이에 대한 연혁적 고찰 및 국가 간 비교 분석을 통해 우리 상표법 상 불사용 취소제도에 대한 개선방안을 제안하였다. 개선방안으로는 ⅰ) 상표법 제7조 제3항의 내용 중 '제7조 제1항 제8호 또는 제8호의 2'부분을 삭제하는 방안, ⅱ) 제7조 제4항 제4호의 경우 심판청구 이후 상표권 소멸 전에도 해당되는지 여부 및 지정상품의 범위와 관련하여 명확히 규정하는 방안, ⅲ) 불사용 취소를 면하고자 하는 상표권자의 악의적인 사용을 규제하기 위한 규정 도입 방안, ⅳ) 불사용 취소심판을 '누구든지' 청구할 수 있도록 청구인적격 확대 방안, ⅴ) 불사용 취소심판의 확정취소심결의 효력을 심판청구일로 소급하도록 하는 방안을 제시하였다. This article deals with the trial for cancellation of a registrated trademark by reason of non-use. The right of trademark is grated by registration procedure in Korea and the use of a trademark isn't a required element to acquire the right. However, the purpose of trademark law isn't the protection for a registered trademark itself but the protection for goodwill of trademark owner's business and this goodwill is occurred through use of trademark. Therefore, the grant of the exclusive right for a non-use trademark would unduly restrict the others' opportunities to select a trademark. Thus, each country has provisions that grant the duty of trademark use and should be the subject matters for the trial for cancellation of a registrated trademark by reason of non-use for certain period. On these trial system for non-use, the revision was done several times to achieve its original purpose in Korea. Especially, last amended in 2013, there were the revocation of a priority right for 6 months of the complainant for the non-use cancellation trial which had been the potential of abuse and the other side the amendment for the improvement of the complainant's application convenience. However, there is the possibility of controversy for interpretation in the 2013 amendment of Korean trademark law. So it is necessary to check up different aspects of each country for the improvement of non-use cancellation trial. Therefore, this article offered the improvement of non-use cancellation trial through comparison analysis for the current law and regulation of each country and the history of revision.

Characteristics of registered studies for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review

Ming Yang,Ya-xi Shang,Zi-yu Tian,Min Xiong,Chun-li Lu,Jiang Yue,Zhang Yao,Zhang Ying-ying,Jin Xin-yan,Jin Qiu-bai,Zhang Ying-ying,Willcox Merlin L.,Liu Jian-ping 한국한의학연구원 2020 Integrative Medicine Research Vol.9 No.3

Background: The World Health Organization characterized the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11th. Many clinical trials on COVID-19 have been registered, and we aim to review the study characteristics and provide guidance for future trials to avoid duplicated effort. Methods: Studies on COVID-19 registered before March 3rd, 2020 on eight registry platforms worldwide were searched and the data of design, participants, interventions, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed. Results: Three hundred and ninety-three studies were identified and 380 (96.7%) were from mainland China, while 3 in Japan, 3 in France, 2 in the US, and 3 were international collaborative studies. Two hundred and sixty-six (67.7%) aimed at therapeutic effect, others were for prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, etc. Two hundred and two studies (51.4%) were randomized controlled trials. Two third of therapeutic studies tested Western medicines including antiviral drugs (17.7%), stem cell and cord blood therapy (10.2%), chloroquine and derivatives (8.3%), 16 (6.0%) on Chinese medicines, and 73 (27.4%) on integrated therapy of Western and Chinese medicines. Thirty-one studies among 266 therapeutic studies (11.7%) used mortality as primary outcome, while the most designed secondary outcomes were symptoms and signs (47.0%). Half of the studies (45.5%) had not started recruiting till March 3rd. Conclusion: Inappropriate outcome setting, delayed recruitment and insufficient numbers of new cases in China implied many studies may fail to complete. Strategies and protocols of the studies with robust and rapid data sharing are warranted for emergency public health events, helping the timely evidence-based decision-making.

부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판에서의 동일성 판단에 관한 고찰

정태호 사법발전재단 2014 사법 Vol.1 No.29

Article 73 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act states that the registration of a trademark can be cancelled where the owner of a trademark right makes consumers mistake the quality of goods or confused with goods related to any business of another person by using intentionally a trademark similar to the registered trademark on the designated goods, or using the registered trademark or similar trademark on goods similar to the designated goods. Article 73 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act purports to secure safety in the transaction of products by regulating against the registered trademark right owner's unlawful use of the registered trademark beyond the lawful scope and to protect trader and consumers' interests as well as other trademark users' reputation, rights and interests in their businesses by preventing acts taking advantage of other trademark users' trust or reputation. On the other hand, Article 73 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act purports to promote the use of a registered mark and impose sanctions on the non-use of the registered mark simultaneously by cancellation of the trademark registration where an owner of a trademark right, exclusive or non-exclusive, licensee fails to use the registered trademark on the designated goods in the Republic of Korea without justifiable grounds, for three or more years consecutively before a cancellation trial is requested. Therefore, regardless of guidelines determining “identity of trademark” on a trial for cancellation of trademark registration based on non-use of the registered mark under Article 73 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, we should determine independently in accordance with the purpose of Article 73 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act whether the owner of a trademark right used the registered trademark or similar trademark based on use for unlawful purposes under Article 73 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act. Namely, the actually used mark can be considered as the use of the mark to be similar to the registered mark and thus can not be considered as the use of the registered mark under Article 73 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act, where the registered mark is used by transformation and the actually used mark seems to be identical or similar to another person's mark(hereinafter called “the subject mark”) and the actually used mark makes consumers mistake the quality of goods further or more confused with goods related to the subject mark of another person than the case of the use of the registered mark, although the actually used mark can be perceived as identical to registered trademark in terms of trade norms and thus considered as the use of the registered mark in Article 73 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act. In conclusion, we should determine whether the actually used mark is identical or similar to the registered mark in comparison with the subject mark as well as the registered mark in a trial for cancellation of trademark registration based on use for unlawful purposes under Article 73 (1) 2 of the Trademark Act. Judging from this point of view, I think that the legal principle stated in the Supreme Court decision 2012Hu1521 decided recently is proper and it will be significant that the legal principle for the determination of this decision is applied to determination of identity between trademarks on the use of the registered mark in a trial for cancellation of trademark registration based on use for unlawful purposes from now on since this decision standardized various existing theories of several researchers ultimately. 상표법 제73조 제1항 제2호에서는 상표권자가 고의로 지정상품에 등록상표와 유사한 상표를 사용하거나, 지정상품과 유사한 상품에 등록상표를 사용하거나, 지정상품과 유사한 상품에 등록상표와 유사한 상표를 사용하여, 수요자로 하여금 상품 품질의 오인 또는 타인의 업무에 관련된 상품과의 혼동을 생기게 한 경우를 상표등록취소사유의 하나로 규정하고 있다. 상표법 제73조 제1항 제2호는 상표권자가 상표제도의 본래 목적에 반하여 자신의 등록상표를 그 사용권의 범위를 넘어 부정하게 사용하지 못하도록 규제함으로써 상품 거래의 안전을 도모하고, 타인의 상표의 신용이나 명성에 편승하려는 행위를 방지하여 거래자와 수요자의 이익보호는 물론 다른 상표를 사용하는 사람의 영업상의 신용과 권익도 아울러 보호하려는 데 그 취지가 있다. 반면에 상표법 제73조 제1항 제3호에서 상표권자 또는 전용사용권자 등이 정당한 이유 없이 국내에서 등록된 상표를 지정상품에 사용하지 아니한 경우에 그 상표등록을 취소할 수 있도록 한 것은 등록상표의 사용을 촉진함과 동시에 그 불사용에 대한 제재를 가하려는 데 그 취지가 있다. 따라서 상표법 제73조 제1항 제2호 소정의 부정사용을 이유로 하는 상표등록취소심판에서 상표권자가 등록상표를 사용한 것인지 아니면 그와 유사한 상표를 사용한 것인지는 상표법 제73조 제1항 제3호 소정의 불사용을 이유로 하는 상표등록취소심판에서의 상표 동일성 판단 기준과 관계없이 상표법 제73조 제1항 제2호의 입법 취지에 따라 독자적으로 판단하여야 한다. 즉, 실사용상표가 거래 통념상 등록상표와 동일하게 볼 수 있는 형태의 상표이어서 상표법 제73조 제1항 제3호 소정의 불사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판에서는 실사용상표의 사용을 등록상표의 사용으로 볼 수 있다고 하더라도, 그 실사용상표가 등록상표를 타인의 상표(이하 ‘대상상표’)와 동일 또는 유사하게 보이도록 변형한 것이어서 그 사용으로 인하여 대상상표와의 관계에서 등록상표를 그대로 사용한 경우보다 수요자가 상품 출처를 오인·혼동할 우려가 더 커지게 되었다면, 상표법 제73조 제1항 제2호 소정의 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판에서는 그 실사용상표의 사용은 등록상표와 유사한 상표의 사용으로 보아야 하고, 이를 등록상표의 사용으로 볼 수는 없다. 결국 상표법 제73조 제1항 제2호 소정의 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판에서 실사용상표가 등록상표와 동일성이 인정되는 상표인지, 유사상표인지를 판단할 때에는 등록상표뿐만 아니라 대상상표와도 대비하여야 한다. 이와 같은 관점에서 최근의 대법원 2013. 12. 26. 선고 2012후1521 판결에서의 판단 법리는 타당한 것으로 보이며, 해당 판결은 이와 같은 기존의 학설상에서 논의되고 있었던 것을 일거에 정리한 것으로써, 향후 부정사용에 의한 취소심판에서의 등록상표의 사용에 대한 동일성 판단에는 해당 판결에서의 판단 법리가 적용되는 것이 중요하게 될 것이라고 생각된다.

임상시험 등록시스템 및 연구결과 보고지침

김성은 ( Seong Eun Kim ) 대한내과학회 2012 대한내과학회지 Vol.83 No.3

Selective outcome reporting is a major problem because it has a negative impact on our scientific knowledge and is unethical as it involves research on human subjects. And inadequate quality of trials may distort the results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Thus, Clinical medicine tries to solve the problem of trials by making public registration before patient enrollment mandatory and encouraging to report the research outcomes by a specific guidelines, In the past few years, the registration of clinical trials and the reporting system has become routine, supported by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. In Korea, the clinical research registry named ``Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS)`` was recently established and became a data provider as a primary registry to the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform search portal. To expand the registration system and to operate them successfully and comprehensively, active participations of researchers as well as the government supports are required.

구 상표법상 서비스표등록의 취소 심결의 확정과 권리범위 확인의 이익

정태호(Jung Tae Ho) 세창출판사 2017 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.86

The issue of Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu3466 (hereinafter referred to as the subject decision ) is a relation between a final and conclusive trial decision on cancellation of registration of service mark in the former Trademark Act and benefit of confirmation of scope of right. Supreme Court decision 93Hu1117 decided that a lawsuit on trial for confirmation of scope of right has benefit of confirmation in case of extinguishment of trademark right based on cancellation of registration but the subject decision decided that the above lawsuit should be concluded by rejection of lawsuit since such lawsuit doesn t have benefit of confirmation in case of the above according to most Supreme Court decisions. I think that Supreme Court decision 93Hu1117 is not reasonable because of having confused the case on this issue with a case on claim of compensation for damages and the subject decision is reasonable. In conclusion, it is reasonable to understand that Supreme Court is following a legal principle of the subject decision now.