부정경쟁행위금지청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.
2. Attached list 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance.
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff: (a) copied the form of ice cream products manufactured and sold by the Defendant, or used the outcomes made by the Plaintiff’s effort and investment without permission; (b) the Defendant’s act constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(i) or (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act; and (c) the Defendant’s act of manufacturing and selling DNA products using each of the items listed in the separate sheet No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior paintings, photographs, etc. constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, by asserting that the Plaintiff’s efforts and investment constituted an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act; and (d) sought prohibition against the manufacture, sale, etc. of ice cream products against the Defendant.
Of the Plaintiff’s claim, the first instance court rejected part of the Plaintiff’s claim (the outer signboard indicated in the separate sheet 2, 2, and 3, the external signboard indicated in the separate sheet 2, crop, chrop paper, chrop paper, chrop paper, chrop container display form, the part of the claim for prohibition of use along with the form of display of chrop container, and the part of the claim for prohibition of use of photograph listed in the separate sheet 4), and only the Defendant appealed against the lost part, and thereafter filed an incidental appeal against the part of the part against which the Plaintiff lost (limited to the claim for prohibition of use of more than three of the external signboard, me new board, contact board, chrop paper, chrop paper, chrop paper display form, and the part of the claim for prohibition of use of a photograph listed in the separate sheet 4).
After that, the Defendant withdrawn the appeal on each of the items listed in the separate sheet 2 and 3 in the judgment of the first instance as to the claim for the prohibition of use of interior interior interior interior interior interior.
(Plaintiff also withdrawn the incidental appeal) Accordingly, the first instance judgment.