현저한 지리적 명칭의 상표 등록 요건에 대한 고찰

Although the geographical trademark is basically denied registration under the Korean Trademark law, there have been cases in which protection as a registered trademark is necessary in the real trade society. Although the Supreme Court recognized the distinguishability of these trademarks through a new logic rather than obtaining secondary meaning by use in its 2015 Seoul National University decision and its 2018 American University decision, there is also criticism of the attitude of the Supreme Court's precedent surrounding these. At this time, if we look at the discussion of geographical names in the United States, it seems that in the United States, geographical names were initially an absolute reason for non-registration, but gradually geographical names are moving in the direction of judging them as well as other trademarks in general. In the case of intuiting the production area, it can be registered if it has acquired a secondary meaning, and in the case of deceiving other consumers, it cannot be absolutely registered. In Korea, our trademark law has refused immediate protection without consideration of the relationship with the designated product or the perception of consumers just because it is a prominent geographical name. By these practical problems, the problem of the present law, which denies identification if it corresponds to a prominent geographical name, has also been pointed out. In the past, products were often based on the characteristics of the region, but in recent years, due to Internet delivery, etc., the geographical name and the product are often unrelated, and it is considered necessary to discuss the revision of Article 33 (1) Paragraph 4 of the Trademark Law.