beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.05.21 2014고정2215

상표법위반

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

The defendant is a person who operates C in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu and sells various charcoal.

No trademark identical or similar to another person's registered trademark shall be delivered, sold, counterfeited, counterfeited, or possessed for the purpose of using or making another person use such trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods.

Although the Defendant had registered the trademark “Ishot” with the Korean Intellectual Property Office at the Korean Intellectual Property Office from September 2, 2014 to October 01, 2014, the Defendant infringed on the victim’s trademark right by selling a trademark “Ishot” while importing and selling the charcoal it operates from September 2, 2014 to October 01, 2014.

Judgment

Although the intention of the infringer is presumed to be the civil liability due to the infringement of trademark rights (Article 68 of the Trademark Act), the presumption provision does not apply to the criminal trademark infringement, so the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the intention of the infringement.

The intention of infringement of trademark rights refers to the defendant's internal intent to recognize the existence of a registered trademark and his/her act as an act of use of the registered trademark and to allow it (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1053, Oct. 11, 2012). The issue is whether the defendant recognized the existence of a registered trademark in the sense that he/she is an act of use of the registered trademark.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, a victim who is a registered owner of a trademark has filed a complaint, and the investigation into the defendant is only acknowledged, and the defendant did not present any evidence to support the fact that the defendant, prior to his/her act of using the trademark (the act of transferring, delivering, displaying, etc. shots marked with the registered trademark), at least dolusent awareness of the fact of crime as the victim's registered trademark, or that he/she continues to use the trademark after the victim's complaint.

Rather, according to the evidence submitted, the defendant has many kinds of types from many purchasing places.