Nevertheless, from July 3, 2012 to December 16, 2014, the Defendant used the trade name "E" as the trade name "E" that is similar to "E" that is registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (Registration No. 41-026746) on August 29, 2013, and used the trade name "E" for a glass wall, which is similar to "E". < Amended by Act No. 11954, Jul. 3, 2012; Act No. 11904, Aug. 29, 2013>

Accordingly, the Defendant used the service mark identical or similar to another person’s registered service mark on goods similar to the designated goods, thereby infringing on the victim’s right to use the service mark.

2. Since the service mark registered by the Defendant’s assertion of Dokdo Island, the service mark is invalid, the Defendant used the same or similar trade name as the above service mark.

Even a crime shall not be a crime.

3. Determination

(a) If a trademark is registered, there is a ground for invalidation of the registration;

Even if the registration is declared null and void by a trial, the right to the registered trademark is held as it is until it becomes final and conclusive.

If a trial decision to invalidate a trademark registration becomes final and conclusive, the trademark right shall be deemed never to have existed from the beginning, unlike when a trial decision to revoke the trademark registration becomes final and conclusive or when the trademark right is revoked (the same shall apply to the trademark before it was wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016).

In light of Article 71(3) of the Act and Article 71(3) of the Act, where a trial decision or invalidation judgment on the right becomes final and conclusive as one of the grounds for retrial (Article 420 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act), the act of infringing another person’s registered trademark right becomes final and conclusive, even before the trial decision invalidating another person’s registered trademark right becomes final and conclusive.