우리나라는 비교법적으로 상표의 사용개념에 관하여 상표법에 별도의 정의규정을 두고 침해로 인한 민․형사상의 책임, 불사용취소 등에 그 개념을 통일적으로 사용하는 입법유형에 속한다. 그럼에도 현행 상표법의 상표 사용개념 규정은 지나치게 낡고 빈약하여 현실을 충분히 규제할 수 없고 서비스표의 사용행위에 대하여는 입법적 공백이 심각하다. 위와 같은 입법의 미비는 실무에서 ‘간판․표찰․광고’, ‘전시․반포’의 개념을 부자연스럽게 확대해석하거나 상표법 대신 부정경쟁방지법을 적용하여 사안을 해결하는 바람직하지 못한 경향을 낳았으며, 상표 침해행위에 엄한 형사벌이 부과되는 점에 비추어 죄형법정주의에 반할 우려도 있다. 이를 극복하기 위하여 가급적 상표 사용개념에 관한 정의규정을 명확하고 구체적으로 개정할 필요가 있으며, 그 개정내용에는 인터넷에서 전자정보재가 네트워크를 통해 유통되는 것과 관련하여 종래의 ‘인도․양도’를 대체할 수 있는 개념, 온라인 상에서의 상표나 서비스표의 광고적 사용을 규율할 수 있는 개념을 각 포함시킬 필요가 있고, 서비스표의 다양한 사용행태를 유형화하여 규정할 필요가 있다. 상표법에 상표 사용개념을 구체적으로 규정함으로써 얻는 효과에는 이율배반적 측면이 있으므로 상표법에는 다소 추상적인 정의규정을 두고 그 구체적인 내용은 하위법령에 위임입법하여 상표 사용 현실의 변화에 따른 개정 필요에 탄력적으로 대응할 수 있도록 함이 상당하다. 아울러, 근래 미국을 중심으로 상표의 침해적 사용 판단에 있어 ‘수요자의 오인․혼동’이라는 ‘결과’에 치중해 오던 종래 판례법의 태도를 비판하면서 상표적 ‘사용’여부를 그 자체로 엄격히 판단해야 한다는 ‘상표 사용론(Trademark use theory)’이 유력히 대두되고 있는바, 상표의 사용개념을 명확하고 엄격히 정립할 필요가 있는 우리의 현실을 고려할 때 위와 같은 논의는 시사하는 바가 크다.

In comparative law’s aspect, Korean trademark law is categorized as a type that general provisions define trademark use notions and are applied consistently in various cases. Nevertheless, the definition is too old and meager to regulate new types of trademark use emerging recently. It keeps silence about service mark use as well. This caused courts to interpret the concepts of ‘sign board’, ‘tag’, ‘advertisement’, ‘display’ and ‘distribution’ in trademark law excessively wide. It also provoked the undesirable practice that courts tend to apply unfair competition law rather than trademark law as they believe the ambiguity of trademark use in unfair competition law confers safe harbor from mistake. Most of all, these kinds of practice can be against the principle of ‘No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law’ as trademark infringement is felony in Korean trademark law. To get this over, the provision needs to be amended as clearly and definitely as possible to encompass various types of trademark uses. New provision ought to cover trademark use on the internet and various kinds of service mark uses. It is a kind of antinomy to enact trademark use in detailed format. Therefore, providing trademark use concepts rather inclusively in the act and detailing those in regulations to meet needs of flexibility and timely revision may be a reasonable alternative. Recently, the Trademark use theory is getting influence rapidly in the U.S., which criticizes the case law focusing on consumer confusion rather than trademark use itself in determining infringement. The theory emphasizes that trademark use is the prerequisite of infringement and the use itself should be reviewed firstly and strictly than consumer confusion as consequence. This discussion is worthy enough to attend considering our search to amend the provision of trademark use notion.

In comparative law’s aspect, Korean trademark law is categorized as a type that general provisions define trademark use notions and are applied consistently in various cases. Nevertheless, the definition is too old and meager to regulate new types of trademark use emerging recently. It keeps silence about service mark use as well. This caused courts to interpret the concepts of ‘sign board’, ‘tag’, ‘advertisement’, ‘display’ and ‘distribution’ in trademark law excessively wide. It also provoked the undesirable practice that courts tend to apply unfair competition law rather than trademark law as they believe the ambiguity of trademark use in unfair competition law confers safe harbor from mistake. Most of all, these kinds of practice can be against the principle of ‘No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law’ as trademark infringement is felony in Korean trademark law. To get this over, the provision needs to be amended as clearly and definitely as possible to encompass various types of trademark uses. New provision ought to cover trademark use on the internet and various kinds of service mark uses. It is a kind of antinomy to enact trademark use in detailed format. Therefore, providing trademark use concepts rather inclusively in the act and detailing those in regulations to meet needs of flexibility and timely revision may be a reasonable alternative. Recently, the Trademark use theory is getting influence rapidly in the U.S., which criticizes the case law focusing on consumer confusion rather than trademark use itself in determining infringement. The theory emphasizes that trademark use is the prerequisite of infringement and the use itself should be reviewed firstly and strictly than consumer confusion as consequence. This discussion is worthy enough to attend considering our search to amend the provision of trademark use notion.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

trademark, service mark, use, sign board, tag, advertisement, display, distribution, domain name, metatag, keyword selling, pop up, contextualism