Patent Court, Judgment of July 16, 2026, Case No. 2026Heo10074
|
Plaintiff's Mark to be Confirmed |
Defendant's Registered Trademark |
|
|
|
Case Overview
The Defendant, the owner of a three-dimensional trademark combining the three-dimensional shape of a towable tube with characters and colors, filed a petition for a positive scope-of-rights confirmation trial against the Plaintiff's mark, on the ground that the shape of the towable tube sold by the Plaintiff was similar to the Defendant's registered trademark and thus fell within the scope of the Defendant's rights. The KIPTAB upheld the petition. The Patent Court, however, revoked the KIPTAB's trial decision, finding that the mark to be confirmed was merely a decorative design. Thereafter, the Supreme Court held that the mark to be confirmed had been used as a trademark, and thus reversed and remanded the lower court's judgment.
Summary of Judgment
On remand, the Patent Court held that the shape at issue functions as a distinguishing mark indicating the source of the goods, taking into consideration that the Defendant had sold goods bearing the three-dimensional shape since around 2003 and that the shape had become known through broadcasts and the media.
The Court further found that the towing and buoyancy functions, which are essential functions of a towable tube, can also be realized through alternative shapes that differ in the angle of the front tube and the shapes of the riding tube and footrest. Accordingly, the Court held that the mark to be confirmed could not be regarded as a shape indispensable to securing the functionality of the goods.
In addition, the Court found that the two marks are similar in their three-dimensional shape and in their combination of yellow and blue color schemes, and that it is difficult to regard the respective characters "Aqua Festa" and "FLY FISH" indicated on the marks as independent dominant portions. Accordingly, the Court held that the dominant appearances of the two marks are similar, giving rise to a likelihood of confusion as to the source, and that, since the goods on which the marks are used are identical, the mark to be confirmed falls within the scope of rights of the Defendant's registered trademark.