(a) The marks listed in the separate sheet 1 shall not be used for the products listed in the separate sheet 2, and b.

A. From January 10, 200, the Plaintiff was manufacturing and selling clothes, caps, etc. under the trade name “B” and is the trademark right holder as follows.

/ The filing date/registration number of the mark C/D/E: The designated goods (Class 25), correspondence, sports-only clothes, kackers, kackers, sports re-cackers, half-packers, half-packers, hats, and hats

(b).

The Defendant, through Internet shopping mall (www.Woner .co.kr, etc.), imports and sells products listed in the separate sheet 2 attached hereto, where the marks of “Just HYPE,” Just HYPE, and JUSTHPE, which are produced by Non-Party Hast Hype Lited, a English company. (hereinafter “instant products”).

Part of the defendant's product photographs [based on recognition] Gap's evidence 1 to 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the plaintiff's trademark right infringement is infringed

A. In principle, the similarity of a combined trademark consisting of two or more letters or diagrams identical or similar to a trademark shall be determined based on the overall appearance, name, and concept of the trademark. However, in order to induce the conclusion of appropriate overall observation if there is an essential part, it is necessary to compare the similarity of a trademark with an essential part in order to determine the similarity of a trademark.

In determining similarity of a trademark, one of the concepts of external name is similar in the sense of appearance, since it is likely to cause misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of the product by observing the trademark in a general and separated manner from the perspective of consumers of the trademark.

Even if all trademarks can avoid the mistake and confusion of sources clearly.