Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

On March 4, 2002, the defendant implemented the procedure for transferring domain names to the plaintiff on March 4, 2002.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as follows 2. Thus, this court’s reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. In relation to the plaintiff's "person with legitimate title" under Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act (hereinafter "Internet Address Resources Act"), the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's trade name was not widely notified, that the term "elb" was merely a simple combination of the words, that is used in the electricity and electronic parts in the related industry, and that the trademark registration of "elb" was made in 2014. The domain name of this case is recognized as the defendant's official homepage in the business partners and related industries, and there is no risk of confusion with the plaintiff's trade name. Further, the defendant paid expenses while managing the domain of this case for 13 years since 2002, and that the plaintiff did not raise any objection for 13 years since he knew that the defendant owned the domain name of this case, and that the defendant did not fully contribute to the management of the domain name of this case, and that the defendant did not use the domain name of this case as the plaintiff's agent of this case, and that it could not be recognized that it did not have any influence on the plaintiff's agent of this case.

The purport of Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act is to ensure the registration and use of a domain name of a legitimate title holder and prevent confusion among Internet users by regulating the so-called cyber-quotaing act that points out a domain name for an unlawful purpose by abusing that overlapping registration is impossible. In addition, the nature of a domain name used in the Internet space and the legislative purport of Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act and the legislative purport of Article 4 of the Internet Address Resources Act, the former provisions only stipulate “Internet address resources, such as domain names, in accordance with the national code of the Republic of Korea” as the subject of the above Act, but it was amended by Act No. 9782 on June 9, 2009 and expanded its application into “Internet address resources, such as the domain name, which is registered, possessed, or used in the Republic of Korea,” and otherwise, the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act and Trade Secret Protection Act and Article 22 subparag. 1 of the Internet Address Resources Act and Article 12 of the same Act does not necessarily stipulate the registration or transfer of a domain name to the Republic of Korea.

In addition, since the domain name of this case is a combination of "here" and "bbe" that means "here", it is difficult to see that anyone can easily see it as an association or common use of the same domain name," it is difficult to see that she is used as common name in the related industry or that it is recognized as the defendant's official homepage from the business partners and the general industry. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant used the domain name of this case as the defendant's official web site prior to the operation of the web site using the domain name of this case as the defendant's trade name, and that the plaintiff's use of the web site of this case as the plaintiff's official web site of this case was sold through the defendant's official web site of this case, and that it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's use of the domain name of this case was closely related to the plaintiff's use of the domain name of this case's 5 years 200 and the plaintiff's use of the domain name of this case's 13 years see the contract of this case.

B. Also, the defendant asserts as follows. Whether there exists "illegal purpose" under Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act shall be determined at the time of the registration of the domain name. The registration of the domain name of this case shall be based on the plaintiff's credit and customer's attraction possibility that Internet users may be induced to the web site of the domain name of this case. However, at the time of the registration of the domain name of this case, the plaintiff was only known in the Republic of Korea through the opening of the web site of the defendant's domain name of this case, and even until now, the awareness of the defendant, who had been trusted as distributors for more than 10 years in the related industry, is higher than that of the plaintiff's trade name. The defendant did not register the domain name of this case for the purpose of introducing and selling all products of this case for the purpose of introducing and selling the plaintiff's product of this case, and the defendant did not have any economic influence on the defendant's business parties and the defendant's sales and distribution credit of the plaintiff's product of this case.

On the other hand, Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act recognizes the duty to transfer the domain name "registration" as well as the "registration" for illegal purposes, and such inducement possibility should not have existed from the time of the registration of the domain name. In addition, the plaintiff registered the domain name "after August 4, 1997" and used it as the plaintiff's official web site with the same distinctive character part as the plaintiff's business while using the domain name of this case. Thus, it is possible for the Internet users to obtain the plaintiff's web site using the domain name of this case established by the defendant according to the plaintiff's credit and customer attraction resources. Since the original web site of this case was registered for the purpose of the defendant's detailed introduction of the plaintiff's products, the defendant had no economic influence on the plaintiff's Internet web site that used the domain name of this case, and even before the defendant operated the web site using the domain name of this case, it seems that the defendant had no economic influence on the plaintiff's business's Internet web site of this case, the plaintiff's business owner's use and its reputation of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable. The judgment of the first instance, which accepted the plaintiff's claim, is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges exhaustr fever (Presiding Judge)