상표법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: (a) the Defendant, in violation of the Trademark Act, indicated “K” on the part of the Boh’s disease products; and (b) indicated in combination with the above part as “P” is an environmentally friendly English language with excellent quality, and thus does not have any special distinctive character; (c) general consumers are bound to report the indication “K” and recognize it as the trademark “H, not just a trade name.”
Therefore, since the Defendant’s indication of the “K” product of Boh’s disease does not constitute a case in which his trade name is indicated in a common way, it does not constitute a ground for not having the effect of trademark right under Article 51(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).
Since the Defendant used “K” in his English trade name for the purpose of unfair competition after the establishment of the trademark right was registered, the trademark of this case remains effective pursuant to Article 51(3) of the former Trademark Act.
The Defendant’s “K” and “G” indicated on the products of Bohick and its packaging are similar to the registered trademark of this case.
Therefore, the Defendant’s act of selling the mark “K” and “NG” on a Bodok disease identical to the designated goods of the instant registered trademark while operating G constitutes an act that infringes on the trademark right of the victim H with respect to the instant registered trademark.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding not guilty of violating the Trademark Act among the facts charged in this case.
The registered trademark of this case is a trademark of another person widely known domestically with respect to the Bodos products, and the defendant is in violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.