Japan Bosamamazza and Doz 10-1

소송대리인 법무법인 ㅇㅇㅇ ( 담당변호사 000, 000, 000 )

Seoul ○○-gu ○○○ 3 - 51 - 30 ○○ ○○ ○

Law Firm ○○ (Attorneys OOO-O)

(a) The debtor shall not print, manufacture, sell, or distribute any product description in the separate sheet No. 1;

(b) The debtor shall not manufacture, sell, distribute, import, export, or exhibit the trademark listed in the attached list No. 2, or the products listed in the attached list No. 3, which are indicated in the attached list No. 3 or on packages, fixed price lists, carvings, Internet homepage, or other advertising advertisements for the products listed in the attached list No. 3 or on the attached list No. 3.

(c) The debtor shall not display the photographs and explanatory descriptions in the attached list No. 4 and the explanatory descriptions in the attached list No. 5 on the package, fixed price list, carving, Internet homepage, and other advertising advertisements as shown in paragraph (2), or display or distribute the above photographs and explanatory descriptions.

2. The debtor shall set aside the possession of the product description in the attached Form 1 list in the debtor's office, warehouse, or business office, the products listed in the attached Form 3 list attached with the trademark listed in the attached Table 2, packaging paper, packing containers, advertising advertisements, and deliver them to the execution officer entrusted by the creditor.

4. An execution officer shall, at the request of a debtor, delete and delete the trademarks listed in the separate sheet No. 3 from products, packaging papers, packing containers, advertising advertisements, and return such goods to the debtor.

5. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the debtor;

(a) The obligee is a company specializing in musical and sound instruments that sell all kinds of sound equipment, such as amno, other musical instruments, and drums, amno, sker, amper, ample-, ample-, AV displayer, etc., to the world;

B. The debtor is a corporation established for the purpose of the export and import business of electronic equipment, home appliances, and sound equipment, which imports and sells sound equipment, etc.

C. The obligee manufactures product specifications in Korean language (hereinafter referred to as product specifications of this case) while exporting AV (AV)-V357, RX-V450, RX-V457 products to Korea, and append the trademark listed in the separate sheet No. 2 to the packages of the product of this case. The obligee hearss the trademark listed in the separate sheet No. 9 (No. 030257, 026816, 08065 of the trademark registration No. 030) with the registration of each of the designated goods (hereinafter referred to as the product of this case) with the trademarks listed in the separate sheet No. 9 (No. 030257, 026816, 08065).

D. The debtor, after the creditor's import of AVH (hereinafter referred to as the imported goods of this case) products to Singapore, sells them on the Internet homepage operated under the domain name of YX-V357, RX-V450, RX-V457 at the time of the creditor's sale of the product of this case, "YAMAHA's trademark and first back side's address, copyright indication, etc. are deleted, and the content is distributed together with the same product description.

E. On October 2003, the obligee entered into a contract with OO, an obligee, who is a photographer of a specialized product, to request the obligee to take photographs of the obligee’s products and to assign all intellectual property rights related to the above pictures obtained as a result to the obligee. The obligee taken photographs of the products.

(f) The obligee may explain the characteristics of the pictures and products sold by the obligee at the Korean language website operated under the domain name of w. ymaaa - co.co.co. c. kr/v/the domain name (hereinafter referred to as the instant pictures and explanations) in order to introduce the obligee's products.

production and posting of the section.

G. The debtor, while selling the imported goods of this case on the debtor's homepage, posted the same photograph and explanatory note as the photograph and explanatory note of this case, and there is no fact that he obtained the consent from the creditor in using the above photograph and explanatory note.

H. The debtor imports and sells the products of the creditors produced in Malaysia from the exporter of Singapore. The imported products of this case are manufactured in conformity with the electrical safety standards of Singapore, which is the third country country, so the electric source code is replaced for the export to Korea. Unlike the products of this case, the part of the voltage display is "20/20/230-240 to 240 VOLS" and "ONLY 220V" is attached to the above voltage part, and the obligor's products are placed in the voltage part. The obligor's products are no longer in the product of this case covered the part of the voltage base, and the obligor's products are open to the terminal.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

(a) Application for prohibition and prevention of infringement of trademark rights under the Roman;

According to the above facts, the act of an obligor importing and selling the imported goods of this case constitutes an act of transferring or delivering the trademark on the goods or packages of goods, or displaying, exporting or importing it for such purpose, which constitutes an act of using a trademark under Article 2 (1) 6 (b) of the Trademark Act, and also constitutes an act of using each trademark of this case as "an act of using the trademark identical to the trademark of this case on the goods identical to the designated goods" and constitutes a trademark infringement under Article 66 (1) 1 of the Trademark

The debtor asserts that the act of importing and selling the imported goods of this case, which the creditor sells in Korea, or all of the imported goods of this case, manufactured in Malaysia and sold in Singapore, is merely a sale after undergoing a normal customs procedure, and thus, the act of importing and selling the imported goods of this case constitutes a legitimate act that does not infringe the creditor's trademark right as to each registered trademark of this case, as a concurrent import of authentic goods.

To be deemed lawful that parallel imports do not constitute an infringement on trademark rights, (1) the parallel importer purchases goods in a state where a trademark right holder loses control over a trademark product by selling them in a trade market and imports them into the Republic of Korea; (3) the distribution of goods with different quality in accordance with the market characteristics of each country is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin or quality of goods to general consumers in the Republic of Korea, such as where goods with different quality are distributed in accordance with the market characteristics of each country, so there is no risk of undermining the market function and quality assurance function of the trademark mark; and there is no possibility that a domestic trademark right holder may damage credit and customer attraction that he/she has independently formed in the Republic of Korea (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2191, Oct. 10, 197; 9Da42322, Sept. 24, 2002).

According to the above facts, the creditor is designing and designing the AV-siber products exported to each country to meet the electrical safety standards of each exporting country. The debtor imports and sells the AV-siber products for Singapore export to Korea. The power source code of the imported products of this case is replaced for Korea so that the products manufactured for Singapore and the products are used in Korea. The product of this case shows the same difference between the products manufactured for Korea and the above 1-h..., the power source code is the main part that affects the safety of the electric products, and the power source code of the products manufactured for Singapore is replaced for Korea, and the product manufactured for Singapore is brought into Korea in conformity with the electrical safety standards of each country. The introduction and use of the products manufactured for Singapore's export into Korea can change the electrical safety standards of Singapore and the Korean electrical safety standards so as to cause safety problems in terms of safety, and although the imported products of this case have undergone import safety certification procedures, the imported products of this case are not the same as the products of this case subject to safety certification as the products of this case.

Even if the obligor's AS is possible, there is a substantial difference between the obligee's product and the obligee's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's reputation and consumer's trust in quality cannot be seen as having any difference in quality. In particular, since the obligor's import and sale of the product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's quality cannot be viewed as a true product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's products's product's product's product's product's product's product's product's identical sales and sale are legitimate because it's no ground to believe that the obligor's product's product's import and sale of this case's product'

Therefore, the obligor is obligated not to display the above registered trademark or to produce, sell, distribute, export, or exhibit products, packaging paper, packing containers, advertising advertisements attached with the trademark as measures necessary to prevent and prevent the obligee’s infringement on the trademark right on the products of this case. Thus, the obligee’s application for this part is justified.

B. The written application for prohibition of copyright infringement on a product description is explained along with the picture to enable users to easily understand the content, quantity, and overall system of the written application for prohibition of copyright infringement on the product description in detail. In light of the content, quantity, and method of use of the written application, it seems that the written application constitutes a intellectual and cultural creation by the obligee’s effort, and therefore, it is protected under the Copyright Act. Since the obligor created an identical or similar use manual and distributed it together with the imported goods of this case that he sells, the obligee’s copyright on the written application of this case is infringed and thus, the preserved right is recognized.

In regard to this, the debtor's assertion that no one can use the Korean language description on the SOV's website but only the debtor can use it. However, as seen above, the debtor's sale of the imported goods of this case does not constitute concurrent import, and the use of the work exceeds the scope of the creditor's implied consent. Thus, this argument cannot be accepted.

If so, in light of the circumstances where the obligor contests the right to be preserved or the circumstances of this case, the obligor is likely to reproduce and distribute the above operating manual in the future, and thus, the necessity of preservation is recognized. Therefore, the obligee's request for this part is justified.

C. In order to be protected under the Copyright Act to prohibit the use of a photograph and an explanation of a product, creativity is required as a requirement. Thus, a creative production means that the author’s own work does not have a pipe of others and that the author’s work has a minimum of creativeity to the extent that it is worth being protected under the Copyright Act. The photographic work refers to the selection of the subject matter, the establishment of an instrument, the direction and quantity of light, the setting of a camera, the speed of the stack, the capture of the screener, the method of shooting, phenomena, and the recognition of the identity and creativity of the photographer in the course of such processes as the selection of the subject matter, the establishment of a camera, the method of photographing, and the method of shooting, etc., shall be deemed to constitute a work protected under the Copyright Act.

From this point of view, as seen earlier, the obligee’s photograph is a photograph produced by requesting a specialized photographing company to take the characteristics of the product sold by the obligee and effectively express high-class brand image. The obligee produced the instant photograph with a considerable cost and time. Although the purpose of the photograph is to achieve the practical purpose of the advertisement by faithfully expressing the shape of the product itself, in light of the circumstances explained in the record, such as the time and expenses invested in order to take pictures of this case, and the selection process, the photograph of this case has creativity by inserting the producer’s intellectual and psychological effort, and the explanation of this case also has the minimum creativity such as the combination of terms to explain the characteristics of the product. The obligor uses it on the obligor’s website by reproducing the instant photograph and explanation as it is. Thus, the obligee’s obligor infringes on the copyright of the instant photograph and explanation.

In this regard, the debtor argues that the posting of the photograph and explanation of this case is an essential act for the sale of the product and included in the allowable scope accompanying concurrent imports, and thus it does not constitute infringement of rights. However, as seen above, the imported goods of this case are not recognized as concurrent imports of the product, so the debtor's assertion is without merit

Therefore, as long as it is clearly explained that the debtor continues to use the photograph and explanatory note of this case on the debtor's website even after the debtor raised an objection to the creditor's assertion, the necessity of preservation is recognized, the creditor's application for this part is justified.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the motion of this case by the creditor is justified because all of the rights to be preserved and the need for preservation has been substantiated and therefore, it shall be accepted as a condition of providing security (Provided, That the products, packaging paper, packing containers, advertising advertisements, etc. listed in the attached Table 3 shall be kept in the execution officer, but they shall be allowed to delete and delete the trademark, etc. listed in the attached Table 2 list and return it to the debtor).

Judges Jeong Jong-do

Judges Jinjin-ri