A. On March 19, 2009, the Defendant exported the trademark identical to the trademark “EASYGLUCO” (registration number: 056637, designated goods: 05637, 10 type 10, and 10 type 10, and exported the trademark to Pakistan by attaching the trademark to the above trademark right holder’s 1,00 type 1,00 type 1,00 type s/ 1,00 type / 10 type 10 type : hereinafter “registration of the trademark of this case”), which was registered by Indiania (hereinafter “victim”) in the B office of the Defendant’s management company located in F3 level in Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon around March 19, 200, and thereby infringing upon the trademark right holder’s export by attaching the trademark of this case to the above trademark right holder’s total 13,050 type 13,050 type / (114,20,761 won).

B. Defendant B, a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling medical devices and medicines, and Defendant B, a representative director of the Defendant, infringed the trademark right of the said trademark right holder as described in paragraph (a) in relation to the Defendant’s business.

2. Where a trial decision invalidating a trademark registration becomes final and conclusive, the trademark right is deemed to have never existed from the beginning, unlike the time a trial decision revoking a trademark registration becomes final and conclusive or the time the trademark right is cancelled or registered (Article 71(3) of the Trademark Act). Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the time when a trial decision invalidating a trademark right or a judgment invalidating a trademark right becomes final and conclusive as to a case convicted of a crime infringing the trademark right (Article 420 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act), the case was stipulated as one of the grounds for retrial (Article 420 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

Even if a trial decision invalidating a trademark registration becomes final and conclusive, the trademark right infringed was not existing from the beginning, so such act cannot be deemed as an act infringing a trademark right under Article 93 of the Trademark Act (Supreme Court Decision 196 May 16, 196).