수선업자의 리폼행위와 상표권 소진에 대한 연구 - 서울중앙지방법원 2023. 10. 12. 선고 2022가합513476 판결을 중심으로 - = A Study on the Reform of a Mending agent and Trademark exhaustion - Based on the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on October 12, 2023, 2022 Gahap 513476 -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

According to the direction of society pursuing environmental protection and sustainable development, there is a movement to achieve eco-friendly goals. Legislation prohibiting the disposal of unsold clothes has been announced, or new products are made using discarded products or used goods to generate profits. Furthermore, the ‘recycling’ and ‘up-cycling’ industries are developing, and it is easy to find cases of reforming.
The target judgment is a case in which a mending agent was requested to reform a luxury bag from the bag owner and reformed it with a bag, wallet, etc. that are completely different in size, shape, and purpose from the original product. The Seoul Central District Court regarded the refurbishment of the mending agent as an act of infringing on the trademark rights of 'Louis Vuitton'. The court cited the reason that it falls under the exception of trademark exhaustion, and that the mending agent uses the trademark of the trademark owner and the designated product is the same or similar.
According to the purpose of the regulation of the trademark law, it must be in line with not only the interests of the trademark owner, but also the interests of industrial development and consumers. Therefore, it should be considered that according to Article 211 of the Civil Act, the bag owner, who is a consumer, should be able to freely use, profit, and dispose of his or her bag.
Regarding the criteria for judging exceptions to the trademark exhaustion doctrine, Korea has consistently judged the criteria of "processing or repairing enough to harm identity". These standards are also consistent with and agree with the direction of the United States, EU, Germany, and Japan. However, this standard should not apply if it is within the scope of individual ownership. In the case of reforming the bag owner's request through a repair company, rather than continuously producing and selling reform products, it would be reasonable not to regard it as trademark infringement because it is within the scope of individual ownership. These results would be in a direction that is consistent with the public interest of environmental protection, the interests of the trademark owner who proves the excellence of products and trademarks, and the interests of consumers who freely exercise their ownership.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 최호진, "형법총론" 박영사 2022

2 이규호, "지식재산의 이해" 박영사 2020

3 홍민지, "죄형법정주의 관점에서 바라본 상표권 침해의 형사처벌 규정에 관한 정비방안 고찰: 상표위조행위를 중심으로" 27 (27): 2016

4 김원오, "제3자의 포장용기 재활용과 상표권 침해의 위법성조각의 항변”" 2005

5 계승균, "저작권법상 권리소진이론" (33) : 2003

6 오승종, "저작권법 강의" 박영사 2023

7 나종갑, "온라인 위조상품 단속의 실효성 제고를 위한 상표법상 간접침해제도개선방안 연구" 특허청 2018

8 방성훈, "안팔려도 처분 못해... EU, 미판매 의류 폐기 금지"

9 계승균, "상표법상 권리소진이론에 관한 일 고찰" 31 (31): 2011

10 정상조, "상표법 주해Ⅰ" 박영사 2018

11 이규호, "상표법" 진원사 2018

12 Legal Times, "루이비통 가방 '리폼'도 상표권 침해"

13 "강남사 홈페이지"

14 "강남사 블로그"

15 "非典型的な商標権侵害行為"

16 中山信弘, "著作権法" 有斐閣 2020

17 渋谷達紀, "知的財産法講義Ⅲ不正競争防止法・独占禁止法上の私人による差止請求制度・商標法・半導体集積回路配置法" 有斐閣 2008

18 박은하, "“버리지 말고 고쳐서 입으세요”…프랑스, 의류 수선보조금 준다"

19 BUSE, "Was bedeutet Erschöpfung im Bereich des Markenrechts?"

20 신미진, ""40만원으로 루이비통 신상백 샀다"…진퉁이 짝퉁 되는데 리폼 하는 이유 [알쓸소비]"