손해배상(기)
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the development and sales of the bookphone program, has the copyright of the “G” program (hereinafter referred to as the “instant book program”) including “E” and “F, etc., and registered this date as the program copyright.
B. Defendant B and C applied for the trademark “I” while running the beauty art business, selling business, etc. of pet animals. While using the same trademark as the franchise store recruited by the Defendants, Defendant B and C used the trademark in the form similar to the E in the instant body program on the signboard.
C. Defendant D applied for the trademark of “J” while running real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “J”, and used a pattern similar to “F” body among the instant letter programs.
[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendants asserted the cause of the instant claim infringed upon the Plaintiff’s copyright by using the Plaintiff’s body in the trademark, etc. filed by the Defendants without the Plaintiff’s permission. The Defendants are liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the said infringement.
3. We cannot accept the argument of the cause of the instant claim for the following reasons, and we cannot find any other reason to justify the Plaintiff’s instant claim in light of the record.
The Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the instant claim is unclear in itself as to whether the right of reproduction was infringed on the computer program copyright, whether the body itself infringed on the right of reproduction, and what kind of infringement on the right under the Copyright Act.
B. If the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants infringed the right of reproduction among the computer program copyright, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants reproduced the instant letter program.
C. If the Plaintiff infringed the right of reproduction of the copyrighted body itself.