상표법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant’s act was indicted as infringing upon D’s trademark right by applying Article 230 of the current Trademark Act. While the current Trademark Act does not distinguish between the trademark and service marks, the fact that D’s registration is not a trademark but a service mark under the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same).
However, even under the former trademark law, since the trademark regulations were applied to the service list, the trademark should be used as a broad concept including the service list.
No person shall use a trademark identical with another person's registered trademark on goods similar to the designated goods, or use a trademark similar to another person's registered trademark on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods.
Nevertheless, from October 6, 2015 to the present date, the Defendant: (a) around July 3, 2015, the trademark holder D, as a trademark holder in Mineyang-si, used the trademark “G”, a similar trademark, as a trademark for the carpet business by adding “F” to the trademark “F” (hereinafter “instant trademark”). (b) manufacturing approximately 200 of the physical disease, indicating the trademark “G” on the side of transparent plastic disease to promote the carpet business, and infringed the trademark right of the said D, such as manufacturing approximately 20 of the physical disease, indicating the trademark on the side of the aforementioned plastic disease.
2. Determination
A. The Trademark Act provides that a registered trademark may be invalidated through a trial for invalidation of registration of a trademark separately prepared in a case where the registered trademark falls under a certain reason. Thus, as long as the registered trademark is registered, there is a ground for invalidation of registration.
Even if a trial decision that such a trial decision be nullified is not final and conclusive, it shall not be null and void.
In this regard, trademark registration shall be made by mistake for a trademark that cannot be registered because it fails to satisfy all the provisions of the Trademark Act concerning trademark registration.