CPTPP상의 관련상품과 상표법상 유사상품 판단의 비교

Article 18.20 of the Agreement stipulates “related goods” and services in establishing the scope of trademark rights, considering joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The purpose of this study is to review the concept of ‘related goods’ because the concept of related goods differs from the concept of ‘similar goods’ used under the current domestic trademark law, which may cause differences in the scope of rights or confusion in the operation of the trademark system. According to Article 108 (1) 1 of the Korean Trademark Act, the prohibitive effect of trademark rights extends to the same or similar goods. To determine whether the scope of “Related Goods” in the CPTPP agreement conforms to this Article, we consider the concept of “related goods” and their judgment criteria under US trademark law and precedents, and then compare and review the criteria for judging ‘similar goods’ in our trademark practice and precedents to determine whether they are terms of the same category or separate terms with differences. There are two opposing interpretations. The view that there is no difference and the view that the range of “related goods” is wider than the range of “similar goods” under the current trademark law, and each argument is examined. Finally, by comprehensively comparing the theories of a related goods and similar goods, and the contact point between two theories is sought. The necessity of revising the trademark law to join the CPTPP is summarized and replaced by conclusions.