상표법위반등
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles (Defendant 1) said that the Defendants used “A Q” as a trademark, and “B” as a manufacturing source, the Defendants were merely ordinarily used, and that the use of “B” as trademark at the time of G sales business was lawful. Since the Defendants made efforts to prevent trademark infringement by managing the banner of the consignment store, there was no infringement of trademark rights and intention of unfair competition.
2) The lower court’s judgment held that the Defendants sold approximately KRW 1 million per month from September 2013 to June 8, 2015, an average of KRW 30,000 per month, and approximately KRW 600,00 per month.
However, the amount of sales by the Defendants cannot reach that limit.
B. On the other hand, the Defendants asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, while the prosecutors are too unfasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Determination on the part of violation of the Trademark Act: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) has been selling G by using the trademark “H” continuously from December 1992 to the present date; (c) the F is a company with the market share of the Republic of Korea, which falls under one of the G G companies; and (b) the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the second instance judgment that determined otherwise to the effect that the well-knownness of the trademark “B” is recognized on July 12, 2012 (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da60622 Decided July 12, 2012); and (c) in light of the fact that the judgment recognizing the well-knownness of the trademark “H” became final and conclusive on April 11, 2013, Defendants may be sufficiently recognized as having violated the trademark right of the victim.
2) The decision on the part of the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act is based on the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.