패밀리룩 상품 포장 디자인과 부정경쟁방지법상 상품주체 혼동행위의 관계 연구 - 서울고등법원 2021. 12. 16. 선고 2021나2017769 판결을 중심으로 -

By applying a unified family look packaging design to related products, there is a tendency in the trading industry to give these designs the characteristics of a product mark indicating the product source of a specific company by displaying designs that convey the image of a specific company on the packaging of related products. A specific company that manufactures and sells kitchen household goods has commonly applied family look designs that include specific colors and fruit shapes to various related products by reflecting this packaging design trend. However, another company used similar designs to these family look designs, which became a legal issue. In this case, the relevant judgment was confirmed and organized through the Seoul High Court Decision 2021Na2017769 Decided on December 16, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “the subject decision”). The subject decision recognized the act causing confusion about the source of a product under Article 2 (1) (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act for the Defendant's sanitary vinyl glove products but denied the application of the provision for roll-type vinyl bag (roll bag) products. In the end, the subject decision that recognized act causing confusion about the source of a product regarding the packaging design of sanitary vinyl gloves products firstly recognized the characteristics of a product mark of the overall design of the plaintiff's product packaging, secondly recognized the wellknownness of the entire product packaging design as a product mark through objective data published in Korea, and thirdly recognized similarity and the possibility of confusion with the product packaging design used by the defendant, focusing on the impression of the overall color or arrangement of the product packaging design. Looking at these judgments, the target judgment faithfully reflected the existing precedents and theoretical legal principles and seems to be consistent with the judgment method in previous decisions examined as similar cases. In particular, for family look product packaging designs, it seems necessary to supplement existing legal principles with unique criteria applicable to such designs. Therefore, when the courts make a decision on this type of case, it will be necessary to state the characteristics of the Family Look product packaging design as a major application requirement in the legal principle and consider this to determine whether the source of a product is confused under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. And if there are a number of decisions on this case in the future, in order to strengthen the perception of a product packaging design as a product mark, companies will further use a family look product packaging design and thus it is also expected that there will be a positive effect of making it somewhat easier for companies to take legal action under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act when imitation incidents for such designs occur.