[도메인주소보유권확인등][미간행]
Plaintiff (Law Firm Han River, Attorneys Kim Jae-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
KM Korea Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Lee Hong-heon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap43684 Decided September 17, 2010
May 12, 2011
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The decision of the first instance court is revoked. It is confirmed that the defendant's domain name "k2.co.kr" against the plaintiff does not exist the right to request the registration of transfer.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except where the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion is added. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited by applying the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The attached parts;
The plaintiff asserts to the purport that there was no economic benefit by taking advantage of the credit and reputation of the defendant trademark at the time of the registration of the domain name of this case.
According to Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, even in cases where the purpose of obstructing the registration and use of the domain name by a person who has a legitimate title in relation to the domain name constitutes an unfair competition act (Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not intend to obtain economic benefits, as alleged in the Plaintiff, the establishment of an unfair competition act is not impeded. The Plaintiff’s assertion on
3. Conclusion
The judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is groundless.
Judges Noh Tae (Presiding Judge) Jin Tae (Presiding Judge)