The purpose of this study is to analyze problems and issues regarding the Korean trial system for the revocation (cancellation) of a trademark registration due to unjust use by the trademark right owner, or non-use of a registered trademark, and to pr...
다국어 입력
あ
ぁ
か
が
さ
ざ
た
だ
な
は
ば
ぱ
ま
や
ゃ
ら
わ
ゎ
ん
い
ぃ
き
ぎ
し
じ
ち
ぢ
に
ひ
び
ぴ
み
り
う
ぅ
く
ぐ
す
ず
つ
づ
っ
ぬ
ふ
ぶ
ぷ
む
ゆ
ゅ
る
え
ぇ
け
げ
せ
ぜ
て
で
ね
へ
べ
ぺ
め
れ
お
ぉ
こ
ご
そ
ぞ
と
ど
の
ほ
ぼ
ぽ
も
よ
ょ
ろ
を
ア
ァ
カ
サ
ザ
タ
ダ
ナ
ハ
バ
パ
マ
ヤ
ャ
ラ
ワ
ヮ
ン
イ
ィ
キ
ギ
シ
ジ
チ
ヂ
ニ
ヒ
ビ
ピ
ミ
リ
ウ
ゥ
ク
グ
ス
ズ
ツ
ヅ
ッ
ヌ
フ
ブ
プ
ム
ユ
ュ
ル
エ
ェ
ケ
ゲ
セ
ゼ
テ
デ
ヘ
ベ
ペ
メ
レ
オ
ォ
コ
ゴ
ソ
ゾ
ト
ド
ノ
ホ
ボ
ポ
モ
ヨ
ョ
ロ
ヲ
―
http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
예시)
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
А
Б
В
Г
Д
Е
Ё
Ж
З
И
Й
К
Л
М
Н
О
П
Р
С
Т
У
Ф
Х
Ц
Ч
Ш
Щ
Ъ
Ы
Ь
Э
Ю
Я
а
б
в
г
д
е
ё
ж
з
и
й
к
л
м
н
о
п
р
с
т
у
ф
х
ц
ч
ш
щ
ъ
ы
ь
э
ю
я
′
″
℃
Å
￠
￡
￥
¤
℉
‰
＄
％
Ｆ
￦
㎕
㎖
㎗
ℓ
㎘
㏄
㎣
㎤
㎥
㎦
㎙
㎚
㎛
㎜
㎝
㎞
㎟
㎠
㎡
㎢
㏊
㎍
㎎
㎏
㏏
㎈
㎉
㏈
㎧
㎨
㎰
㎱
㎲
㎳
㎴
㎵
㎶
㎷
㎸
㎹
㎀
㎁
㎂
㎃
㎄
㎺
㎻
㎽
㎾
㎿
㎐
㎑
㎒
㎓
㎔
Ω
㏀
㏁
㎊
㎋
㎌
㏖
㏅
㎭
㎮
㎯
㏛
㎩
㎪
㎫
㎬
㏝
㏐
㏓
㏃
㏉
㏜
㏆
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T14055761
- 저자
-
발행사항
대전: 忠南大學校 大學院, 2016
-
학위논문사항
학위논문(박사) -- 忠南大學校 大學院 , 법학과 지적재산권법 전공 , 2016. 2
-
발행연도
2016
-
작성언어
한국어
-
DDC
346.048 판사항(22)
-
발행국(도시)
대전
-
기타서명
Study on the Trial System for the Revocation of a Trademark Registration for Unjust Use or Non-use of a Trademark
-
형태사항
viii, 292 p.: 삽화; 26 cm.
-
일반주기명
충남대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.
지도교수: 김동준
참고문헌: p. 281-287 -
소장기관
- 국립중앙도서관
- 충남대학교 도서관
- 국립중앙도서관
-
0
상세조회 -
0
다운로드
부가정보
다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
The purpose of this study is to analyze problems and issues regarding the Korean trial system for the revocation (cancellation) of a trademark registration due to unjust use by the trademark right owner, or non-use of a registered trademark, and to propose legislative alternatives to certain problems, as well as to offer a new construction on certain issues.
Regarding a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration due to unjust use by the trademark right owner in accordance with Article 73(1)2 of the Korean Trademark Act, first, it is proposed to clearly provide for, in the Trademark Act, the concept of ‘a comparable trademark’ and its requirements; for, despite no specific wording for it in the Act, the courts have acknowledged its presence and its necessity when correctly applying the Article, and it should be provided for, even if only on the basis of pure logic.
Second, it is proposed that, in addition to the consumer, ‘the general public’ be included among those who can be misled or confused as to the source of goods or services, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged the possibility of ‘post-sale confusion’ on the part of the public. Alternatively it is proposed to delete ‘the consumer’ in order to expand ‘the misled subjective’ to ‘the public’ or ‘the third party.’
Third, the expression ‘confusion with goods relating to another person’s business’ is vague and elusive, and I propose it be changed to ‘confusion with the goods of another person.’
Fourth, Article 91bis(2), which is closely related to Article 73(1)2, must be amended due to both a semantic or phraseological error as well as a lapse in logic. The wording ‘as similar to the registered trademark’ must be deleted. In addition, a provisory clause needs to be added to the Article, saying “Provided, that the foregoing shall not apply where a change of color of the registered trademark leads to any misconception about the quality of goods or any confusion with another person’s trademark recognized as a particular person’s.”
In regard to a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration for non-use under Article 73(1)3, first, it is proposed to provide that a non-exclusive licensee could sub-license his/her license to another person with permission from the trademark right owner (and the exclusive licensee, if any).
Second, it is beyond all reason and understanding that the Supreme Court acknowledged as ‘the use of a trademark by its right holder’ the importing, selling and displaying of the designated goods of a registered trademark by a parallel importer who is not under the control of, or has no relation to, the trademark right owner. This decision is not in accordance with not only paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the WTO/TRIPs Agreement and foreign case law but also another judgment made by the same Supreme Court in which the Court did not acknowledge the selling of designated goods by a domestic seller who is not under the control of the trademark right owner as a justifiable use of the registered trademark for the purpose of exemption of revocation of a trademark registration under Article 73(1)3.
Third, it is proposed to demolish the unnecessary interests requirement, provided for in Article 73(6), for a claimant to prove his/her interests for the trial for the revocation of a trademark registration in accordance with Article 73(1)3.
Fourth, it is recommended to make a provision in the Act not to acknowledge as “a justifiable use” cases in which the registered trademark is used within three months before the date of lodging the request for a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration, for it is “a nominal use” intended to avoid revocation due to non-use.
Fifth, it is proposed to acknowledge the retroactive effect of the revocation of a registered trademark to the date of the registration of the trial request, for it may be possible for the trademark right owner to lodge an infringement lawsuit or license the trademark not in use to a third party during the period of the trial for the revocation of a trademark registration.
Sixth, it is required to prohibit the trademark right owner from registering a new trademark identical with or similar to the abandoned trademark where the trademark right owner abandons his/her trademark right within three months before the filing date of the request for a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration.
Seventh, It is desirable to expand the acknowledgeable scope of identity of a registered trademark to include combination of not only English but also other foreign letters that are familiar to Koreans and their Korean transliteration as reflecting the trader’s actual custom and practice of using registered trademarks.
Eighth, it is recommended to establish clear standards and criteria for scope of identity of a trademark in relation to Article 73(1)3 in view of case law, academic theories, and foreign legislation, because, without such standards and criteria, even court decisions have had no coherence or consistency on scope of identity of a trademark under Article 73(1)3.
Ninth, as Article 73(1)3 and Article 73(4) mostly overlap each other, it is recommended to combine the two paragraphs into one that is systematic.
Regarding a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration due to unjust use by the trademark right owner in accordance with Article 73(1)2 of the Korean Trademark Act, first, it is proposed to clearly provide for, in the Trademark Act, the concept of ‘a comparable trademark’ and its requirements; for, despite no specific wording for it in the Act, the courts have acknowledged its presence and its necessity when correctly applying the Article, and it should be provided for, even if only on the basis of pure logic.
Second, it is proposed that, in addition to the consumer, ‘the general public’ be included among those who can be misled or confused as to the source of goods or services, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged the possibility of ‘post-sale confusion’ on the part of the public. Alternatively it is proposed to delete ‘the consumer’ in order to expand ‘the misled subjective’ to ‘the public’ or ‘the third party.’
Third, the expression ‘confusion with goods relating to another person’s business’ is vague and elusive, and I propose it be changed to ‘confusion with the goods of another person.’
Fourth, Article 91bis(2), which is closely related to Article 73(1)2, must be amended due to both a semantic or phraseological error as well as a lapse in logic. The wording ‘as similar to the registered trademark’ must be deleted. In addition, a provisory clause needs to be added to the Article, saying “Provided, that the foregoing shall not apply where a change of color of the registered trademark leads to any misconception about the quality of goods or any confusion with another person’s trademark recognized as a particular person’s.”
In regard to a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration for non-use under Article 73(1)3, first, it is proposed to provide that a non-exclusive licensee could sub-license his/her license to another person with permission from the trademark right owner (and the exclusive licensee, if any).
Second, it is beyond all reason and understanding that the Supreme Court acknowledged as ‘the use of a trademark by its right holder’ the importing, selling and displaying of the designated goods of a registered trademark by a parallel importer who is not under the control of, or has no relation to, the trademark right owner. This decision is not in accordance with not only paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the WTO/TRIPs Agreement and foreign case law but also another judgment made by the same Supreme Court in which the Court did not acknowledge the selling of designated goods by a domestic seller who is not under the control of the trademark right owner as a justifiable use of the registered trademark for the purpose of exemption of revocation of a trademark registration under Article 73(1)3.
Third, it is proposed to demolish the unnecessary interests requirement, provided for in Article 73(6), for a claimant to prove his/her interests for the trial for the revocation of a trademark registration in accordance with Article 73(1)3.
Fourth, it is recommended to make a provision in the Act not to acknowledge as “a justifiable use” cases in which the registered trademark is used within three months before the date of lodging the request for a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration, for it is “a nominal use” intended to avoid revocation due to non-use.
Fifth, it is proposed to acknowledge the retroactive effect of the revocation of a registered trademark to the date of the registration of the trial request, for it may be possible for the trademark right owner to lodge an infringement lawsuit or license the trademark not in use to a third party during the period of the trial for the revocation of a trademark registration.
Sixth, it is required to prohibit the trademark right owner from registering a new trademark identical with or similar to the abandoned trademark where the trademark right owner abandons his/her trademark right within three months before the filing date of the request for a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration.
Seventh, It is desirable to expand the acknowledgeable scope of identity of a registered trademark to include combination of not only English but also other foreign letters that are familiar to Koreans and their Korean transliteration as reflecting the trader’s actual custom and practice of using registered trademarks.
Eighth, it is recommended to establish clear standards and criteria for scope of identity of a trademark in relation to Article 73(1)3 in view of case law, academic theories, and foreign legislation, because, without such standards and criteria, even court decisions have had no coherence or consistency on scope of identity of a trademark under Article 73(1)3.
Ninth, as Article 73(1)3 and Article 73(4) mostly overlap each other, it is recommended to combine the two paragraphs into one that is systematic.
The purpose of this study is to analyze problems and issues regarding the Korean trial system for the revocation (cancellation) of a trademark registration due to unjust use by the trademark right owner, or non-use of a registered trademark, and to propose legislative alternatives to certain problems, as well as to offer a new construction on certain issues.
Regarding a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration due to unjust use by the trademark right owner in accordance with Article 73(1)2 of the Korean Trademark Act, first, it is proposed to clearly provide for, in the Trademark Act, the concept of ‘a comparable trademark’ and its requirements; for, despite no specific wording for it in the Act, the courts have acknowledged its presence and its necessity when correctly applying the Article, and it should be provided for, even if only on the basis of pure logic.
Second, it is proposed that, in addition to the consumer, ‘the general public’ be included among those who can be misled or confused as to the source of goods or services, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged the possibility of ‘post-sale confusion’ on the part of the public. Alternatively it is proposed to delete ‘the consumer’ in order to expand ‘the misled subjective’ to ‘the public’ or ‘the third party.’
Third, the expression ‘confusion with goods relating to another person’s business’ is vague and elusive, and I propose it be changed to ‘confusion with the goods of another person.’
Fourth, Article 91bis(2), which is closely related to Article 73(1)2, must be amended due to both a semantic or phraseological error as well as a lapse in logic. The wording ‘as similar to the registered trademark’ must be deleted. In addition, a provisory clause needs to be added to the Article, saying “Provided, that the foregoing shall not apply where a change of color of the registered trademark leads to any misconception about the quality of goods or any confusion with another person’s trademark recognized as a particular person’s.”
In regard to a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration for non-use under Article 73(1)3, first, it is proposed to provide that a non-exclusive licensee could sub-license his/her license to another person with permission from the trademark right owner (and the exclusive licensee, if any).
Second, it is beyond all reason and understanding that the Supreme Court acknowledged as ‘the use of a trademark by its right holder’ the importing, selling and displaying of the designated goods of a registered trademark by a parallel importer who is not under the control of, or has no relation to, the trademark right owner. This decision is not in accordance with not only paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the WTO/TRIPs Agreement and foreign case law but also another judgment made by the same Supreme Court in which the Court did not acknowledge the selling of designated goods by a domestic seller who is not under the control of the trademark right owner as a justifiable use of the registered trademark for the purpose of exemption of revocation of a trademark registration under Article 73(1)3.
Third, it is proposed to demolish the unnecessary interests requirement, provided for in Article 73(6), for a claimant to prove his/her interests for the trial for the revocation of a trademark registration in accordance with Article 73(1)3.
Fourth, it is recommended to make a provision in the Act not to acknowledge as “a justifiable use” cases in which the registered trademark is used within three months before the date of lodging the request for a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration, for it is “a nominal use” intended to avoid revocation due to non-use.
Fifth, it is proposed to acknowledge the retroactive effect of the revocation of a registered trademark to the date of the registration of the trial request, for it may be possible for the trademark right owner to lodge an infringement lawsuit or license the trademark not in use to a third party during the period of the trial for the revocation of a trademark registration.
Sixth, it is required to prohibit the trademark right owner from registering a new trademark identical with or similar to the abandoned trademark where the trademark right owner abandons his/her trademark right within three months before the filing date of the request for a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration.
Seventh, It is desirable to expand the acknowledgeable scope of identity of a registered trademark to include combination of not only English but also other foreign letters that are familiar to Koreans and their Korean transliteration as reflecting the trader’s actual custom and practice of using registered trademarks.
Eighth, it is recommended to establish clear standards and criteria for scope of identity of a trademark in relation to Article 73(1)3 in view of case law, academic theories, and foreign legislation, because, without such standards and criteria, even court decisions have had no coherence or consistency on scope of identity of a trademark under Article 73(1)3.
Ninth, as Article 73(1)3 and Article 73(4) mostly overlap each other, it is recommended to combine the two paragraphs into one that is systematic.
목차 (Table of Contents)
- 제1장 서 론 1
- 제1절 연구의 목적 1
- 제2절 연구의 범위와 방법 5
- 제2장 상표권자의 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판 10
- 제1절 서설 10
- 제1장 서 론 1
- 제1절 연구의 목적 1
- 제2절 연구의 범위와 방법 5
- 제2장 상표권자의 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판 10
- 제1절 서설 10
- 제2절 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판제도의 변천 14
- 제3절 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소 요건 16
- Ⅰ. 절차적 요건 16
- 1. 청구인 적격 16
- 2. 청구 기간 16
- Ⅱ. 실체적 요건 16
- 1. 상표권자에 의한 등록상표의 부정사용행위가 있을 것 17
- 2. 등록상표의 유사범위 내 사용일 것 19
- 3. 수요자로 하여금 상품 품질의 오인 또는 타인의 업무에 관련된 상품과 혼동이 생기게 하였을 것 32
- 4. 상표권자의 고의가 있을 것 52
- 제4절 상표권자의 부정사용과 사용권자의 부정사용 54
- Ⅰ. 상표법 제73조 제1항 제2호와 제8호 및 제74조의 비교·분석 54
- 1. 제도의 취지 54
- 2. 상표등록 취소 요건 55
- 3. 당사자 적격 문제 56
- 제5절 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소제도의 외국 입법례 58
- Ⅰ. 일본의 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소제도 58
- 1. 서설 58
- 2. 상표등록 취소 요건 59
- 3. 취소심결의 효과 61
- 4. 절차적 사항 62
- Ⅱ. 미국의 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소제도 63
- 1. 서설 63
- 2. 상표등록 취소 요건 65
- 3. 취소심결의 효과 68
- 4. 절차적 사항 68
- Ⅲ. 유럽의 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소제도 69
- 1. 서설 69
- 2. 상표등록 취소 요건 71
- 3. 취소결정의 효과 72
- 4. 절차적 사항 73
- Ⅳ. 중국의 부정사용에 의한 상표등록취소제도 74
- 1. 서설 74
- 2. 상표등록 취소 요건 75
- 3. 취소결정의 효과 79
- 4. 절차적 사항 80
- Ⅴ. 정책적 시사점 82
- 제3장 등록상표의 불사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판 84
- 제1절 서설 84
- 제2절 불사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판제도의 변천 88
- 제3절 불사용에 의한 상표등록의 취소 요건 90
- Ⅰ. 절차적 요건 90
- 1. 청구인 적격 90
- 2. 청구 기간 91
- Ⅱ. 실체적 요건 91
- 1. 상표권자 또는 사용권자 중 누구도 등록상표를 사용하지 않았을 것 91
- 2. 등록상표의 동일성 범위 내에서 사용하지 않았을 것 125
- 3. 그 지정상품에 대하여 사용하지 않았을 것 164
- 4. 취소심판청구일 전 계속하여 3년 이상 불사용하였을 것 174
- 5. 국내에서 사용하지 않았을 것 174
- 6. 정당한 사용이 아닐 것 178
- 7. 등록상표의 불사용에 대한 정당한 이유가 없을 것 186
- 제4절 불사용에 의한 상표등록취소제도의 외국 입법례 192
- Ⅰ. 일본의 불사용에 의한 상표등록취소제도 192
- 1. 서설 192
- 2. 상표등록 취소 요건 193
- 3. 취소심결의 효과 204
- 4. 청구인 적격 205
- Ⅱ. 미국의 불사용에 의한 상표등록취소제도 207
- 1. 서설 207
- 2. 상표등록 취소 요건 209
- 3. 취소심결의 효과 212
- 4. 절차적 사항 212
- Ⅲ. 유럽연합의 불사용에 의한 상표등록취소제도 214
- 1. 서설 214
- 2. 상표등록 취소 요건 215
- 3. 취소결정의 효과 219
- 4. 절차적 사항 220
- Ⅳ. 중국의 불사용에 의한 상표등록취소제도 221
- 1. 서설 221
- 2. 상표등록 취소 요건 223
- 3. 취소결정의 효과 224
- 4. 절차적 사항 226
- Ⅴ. 정책적 시사점 228
- 제4장 부정사용 및 불사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판제도의 개선방안 230
- 제1절 상표권자의 부정사용에 의한 취소심판제도 개선방안 230
- Ⅰ. 대상상표에 관한 입법론 230
- Ⅱ. 오인·혼동의 주체에 관한 입법론 231
- Ⅲ. 모호한 표현의 명확화를 위한 입법론 232
- Ⅳ. 제73조 제1항 제2호의 개정안 234
- Ⅴ. 법 제91조의2 제2항의 개정안 235
- Ⅵ. 기타 관련 조항 개정안 237
- Ⅶ. 제척기간에 관한 검토 238
- 제2절 불사용 취소심판제도의 개선방안 239
- Ⅰ. 등록상표 사용주체에 관한 검토 239
- 1. 통상사용권자의 재사용권 설정에 대한 입법론 239
- 2. 제3자(도·소매업자)의 판매행위에 대한 해석론 242
- 3. 병행수입업자의 수입, 판매행위에 대한 해석론 243
- Ⅱ. 청구인 적격에 관한 입법론 245
- 1. 문제의 제기 245
- 2. 외국의 입법례 246
- 3. 청구인 적격의 개방·확대에 대한 찬·반 양론 247
- 4. 청구인 적격 확대를 위한 입법 제안 251
- Ⅲ. 취소심판청구 직전 명목적·형식적 사용에 대한 입법론 252
- 1. 문제의 제기 252
- 2. 외국의 사례 254
- 3. 심판청구 직전의 명목적·형식적 사용에 대한 입법 제안 256
- Ⅳ. 취소심판청구 직전 동일·유사한 상표의 출원·등록 제한에 관한 입법론 257
- 1. 문제의 제기 257
- 2. 심판청구 직전 상표권자의 출원·등록 제한에 관한 입법 제안 259
- Ⅴ. 불사용취소의 소급효에 관한 입법론 260
- 1. 문제의 제기 260
- 2. 외국의 사례 261
- 3. 불사용취소의 소급효 인정에 관한 입법 제안 262
- Ⅵ. 상표의 동일성에 관한 인정범위 확대에 관한 입법론 264
- 1. 외국 문자와 한글 음역이 결합된 상표의 동일성 인정 확대 264
- 2. 등록상표의 동일성 인정에 관한 판단 기준 정립 267
- Ⅶ. 제73조 제1항 제3호와 제73조 제4항의 통합 (입법론) 270
- 1. 문제의 제기 270
- 2. 두 조항에 대한 비교분석 270
- 3. 제73조 제1항 제3호 및 제73조 제4항의 통합·개정 제안 272
- 제5장 결론 275
참고문헌 (Reference)
1. , 상표법, 한빛지적소유권센터, , 1997
2. , 권택수, WTO TRIPs 협정 조문별 해설, , 2004
3. , 권택수, 국내기업의 상표관리활동 실태조사․분석, , 2013
4. , 권택수, 미국 연방상표법 제도에 관한 분석 및 시사점, , 2006
5. 상표법, 문삼섭, 한국지적재산연구원, 세창출판사, , 2002
6. 「상표법」, 윤선희, 법문사, 법문사, , 2007
7. 中國商標法, 이희중, 금강도서출판사, , 2007
8. 商標(第4版), 권택수, 有斐閣, , 1998
9. 商標(第6版), 권택수, 有斐閣, , 2002
10. 상표법(제6판), 박종태, 한빛지적소유권센터, , 2012
1. , 상표법, 한빛지적소유권센터, , 1997
2. , 권택수, WTO TRIPs 협정 조문별 해설, , 2004
3. , 권택수, 국내기업의 상표관리활동 실태조사․분석, , 2013
4. , 권택수, 미국 연방상표법 제도에 관한 분석 및 시사점, , 2006
5. 상표법, 문삼섭, 한국지적재산연구원, 세창출판사, , 2002
6. 「상표법」, 윤선희, 법문사, 법문사, , 2007
7. 中國商標法, 이희중, 금강도서출판사, , 2007
8. 商標(第4版), 권택수, 有斐閣, , 1998
9. 商標(第6版), 권택수, 有斐閣, , 2002
10. 상표법(제6판), 박종태, 한빛지적소유권센터, , 2012
11. 상표법(제7판), 권택수, 한빛지적소유권센터, , 2013
12. 심판편람 제11판, 권택수, , 2014
13. 지적소유권법(하), 김원오, 송영식, 황종환, 육법사, 한빛지적소유권센터, , 1999
14. 각주 민법조문정리, 이상윤, 한빛지적소유권센터, 한빛지적소유권센터, , 2012
15. 상표법 판례, 제3판, 권택수, 한빛지적소유권센터, , 2014
16. 조문별 상표법해설, 권택수, , 2007
17. 미국 연방상표법연구, 나종갑, 한남대학교출판부, , 2005
18. 중화인민공화국상표법, 정덕배, 특허청 내부자료, , 2014
19. “상표의 사용의 개념”, 도두형, 특허소송연구 제1집, 특허법원, , 1999
20. 특허민법개론(개정신판), 김민희, 특허청, , 2012
21. 조문별·쟁점별 상표판례, 이병용, 대한변리사회, , 2013
22. 일본의 상표심판청구동향, 정성창, 특허청 내부문서, , 2015
23. “상표의 사용에 관한 연구”, 윤선희, 산업재산권 제20호, , 2005
24. “불사용상표등록취소의 요건”, 최두진, 한국지적재산권법제연구원, 지적재산권, Vol.24, 한국지적재산권법제연구원, , 2008
25. “상표등록취소심판제도의 제문제”, 강동세, 특허소송연구(제2집), 특허법원, , 2002
26. “일본 등록상표의 불사용취소심판”, 이경림, 특허청 내부자료, , 2010
27. 編, 註解 商標法(新版) 下卷, 靑林書院, 권택수, 平成17年,
28. TM5(한 미 일 유럽 중국) 상표법 비교 제5권, 권택수, 중국 상표법, , 2013
29. “상표등록취소심판 및 사용권등록취소심판”, 송동원, 지적소유권에 관한 제문제(하), 사법연수원, 법관연수자료, , 1991
30. 상표불사용취소심판제도개선방안에 관한 연구, 이대희, 특허청 특허심판원, 특허심판원, , 2001
31. 우리나라 상표보호제도의 개선방안에 관한 연구, 손영식, 한남대학교 박사학위 논문, , 2014
32. 2단 병기상표 중 일단만의 사용을 둘러싼 제 문제, 이철승, 세창출판사, 창작과 권리,년 겨울호, 2014, , 2014
33. “최근의 대법원 상표판례의 배경 및 판단동향”, 권택수, 특허청 상표제도연구회 발표자료, , 2014
34. “상표불사용취소심판제도 개선방안에 관한 소고”, 김연환, 지식재산21, 제71호, 특허청, , 2002
35. 상표제도 활성화를 위한 불사용취소심판의 개선방안, 심미랑, 김남경, 한국비교사법학회, 비교사법, Vol. 20, No.4, , 2013
36. “한일의 불사용에 의한 상표등록취소심판제도의 비교”, 권택수, 특허청 내부망게재자료, , 2013
37. “등록상표의 불사용취소와 부정사용취소의 실무적 재검토”, 원유석, 사법논집제49집, , 2009
38. 상표 불사용 취소심판제도에 관한 고찰, 한남대 행정정책대학원, 김경옥, 석사학위논문, , 2002
39. TM5(한 미 일 유럽 중국) 상표법 비교 제1권 TM5 상표법 체계의 개요, 권택수, TM5 상표법 조문별 대조표, , 2013
40. “상표법상 ‘상표의 사용’의 개념에 관한 한 일간 비교 연구”, 이기영, 지식과권리, 제15호, , 2013
41. 불사용상표에 대한 취소심판제도에 관한 연구, 고려대 행정대학원, 우진식, 석사학위논문, , 2003
42. “등록상표불사용에 의한 취소심판에 관한 연구(판례를 중심으로)”, 이석조, 충남대학교 석사학위 논문, , 2001
43. “연합상표제도의 폐지에 따른 법률관계(대법원 선고 2003후823 판결)”, 한규현, 대법원판례해설, 제50호(2004), 법원도서관, 2004, , 2004
44. “일본의 상표불사용취소심판제도와 그 특징에 관한 비교법적 연구”, 정태호, 원광대학교 법학연구소, 원광법학 제26권 제4호, , 2010
45. “최고인민법원의 북경 상해 광주 지식재산권법원 사건 관할에 관한 규정”, 권택수, 특허청 내부자료, , 2015
46. “중국 상표법에 관한 연구-중국상표제도의 특성 및 보호방안을 중심으로-”, 윤정화, 충남대 대학원, 박사학위논문, , 2007
47. “상표불사용 취소심판에 관한 소고 : 불사용에 대한 정당한 이유를 중심으로”, 이관희, 창작과 권리, No.27, , 2002
48. 전국인민대표회의 상무위원회 북경 상해 광주에 지식재산권 법원설립에 관한 결정, 권 택수, 특허청 내부자료, , 2015
49. “불사용으로 인한 상표등록취소심판에서의 이해관계인- 특허법원 선고 2009허2531 판결을 중심으로”, 임상민, 法曹, 2011 3(Vol.654), 2011, , 2009
50. “영문자 한글 음역 결합 상표의 사용에 관한 연구-대법원 선고 2012후2463 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로-”, 박태일, 지식재산연구, 제9권제4호(2014. 12.), 2014, , 2013
51. “상표등록의 불사용취소심판에서 등록상표의 동일성 판단 -대법원 선고 2012후2463 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로-”, 김원준, 산업재산권,제44호, 2014, , 2013
52. “상표불사용으로 인한 등록취소심판에 있어서의 이해관계인 : 특히 심판청구인이 외국의 동종업자 또는 동일 유사상표권자인 경우”, 권택수, 창작과 권리,No.19, 세창출판사, , 2000
53. 불사용으로 인한 상표등록취소심판에 있어서 등록상표의 사용이 타인의 저작권 침해에 해당되는 경우 이를 상표의 정당한 사용으로 볼 수 있는지 여부, 권택수, 특허소송연구 2집, 특허법원, , 2002
분석정보
이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료
나만을 위한 추천자료
