The Plaintiff is a person who runs the manufacturing and wholesale business of leather products, such as verbal words, etc., in Yangsan City D, and is a final holder of the trademark on January 4, 2004, the designated goods of which are indicated in the attached Table registered (hereinafter “the trademark of this case”) with the designated goods as “shot, leather, vinyl, vinyl, finite, grat, grat, grat, sandbrat, frat for shoes, back beer for shoes, and grat for shoes.”

On March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants on an agent (hereinafter “instant agent”) under which the Defendants would receive and sell new and other products bearing the trademark of this case from the Plaintiff.

From around that time, Defendant C supplied products bearing the trademark of this case from the Plaintiff and operated oral stores by selling them, using the trade name “G” in South-gu, South-gu, 1, 1503.

The conclusion of the instant agency contract was led by Defendant C, but the party to the instant agency contract was the sole name of Defendant B on the ground of credit rating, etc., and the business registration was completed in the name of Defendant B.

After concluding the instant agency contract, Defendant C arbitrarily ordered and manufactured a trademark of the same type as the instant trademark jointly with H, and subsequently sold it with the products supplied by the Plaintiff after attaching it to the new products purchased in the Dongdaemun market, etc.

On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant B, a party to the instant agency contract, against the violation of the Trademark Act. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional injunction against infringement of trademark rights with the Ulsan District Court 2013Kahap630 against Defendant B.

In the case of the application for provisional injunction against infringement of the above trademark right, there is a lack of vindication of the right to be preserved, and at the same time, the Plaintiff sought to prohibit the Defendant from displaying, keeping, and selling the verbal and leather products on which the trademark of this case is attached to the Defendant side, but did not terminate the instant agency contract.