The Defendant is a person who operates a website called “F” under the trade name called “E” in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu.

No one shall cause confusion with another person's business facilities or activities by using any one identical or similar to the name, trade name, or emblem of another person or any other mark indicating another person's business, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea.

On November 2015, the Defendant left the victim company’s water purifiers by using an image identical to the victim company’s business sign, “I”, “J”, “K”, and the victim company’s website image on the victim company’s website from around March 2016, even though the H and the contract with the Defendant for the sale of the products by proxy of the victim company G (hereinafter “victim”) was terminated.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an act of causing confusion as a business activity of the victim company using the same mark as the mark indicating the business of the victim company widely known in Korea.

[1] Since the Defendant did not engage in a business through the above Internet site after November 2015, the Defendant and his defense counsel did not intend to engage in an unfair competitive act against the Defendant, the Defendant did not indicate that the Defendant engaged in an unfair competitive act. 2) Since the above Internet site did not indicate that the Defendant was an official store or official agency of the victim company, and the site was considerably bad, the Defendant’s act does not constitute an act of causing confusion as a business activity of the victim company.

The argument is asserted.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is recognized that the facts of unfair competition as stated in the judgment of the defendant are recognized in view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court:

The defendant and defense counsel are without merit.

① Since November 2015, the Defendant did not operate a business via the above Internet site.