2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

2. On the non-Packing road, the Plaintiff used “4 x 4 bit 4 bit 4 bit 4 bit Professor Mamp Races” similar to the domestically widely known “the name of the instant games” (hereinafter “the name of the instant games”) in the name of the Non-Packing road, and used pictures without permission under the name of the Plaintiff’s vehicle racing promotion materials.

(hereinafter “the instant pictures”). Accordingly, the Defendants committed an act of causing confusion with the Plaintiff’s business activities in relation to the sports organization and industry using a mark similar to the Plaintiff’s name, which is a mark widely known domestically due to the Plaintiff’s business activities (hereinafter “the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act”).

(2) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from an unfair competitive act, such as the purport of the claim, inasmuch as the Plaintiff violated the Plaintiff’s economic interest by using the outcome of the Plaintiff’s considerable investment or efforts for one’s own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order (j)).

2. Judgment on the assertion of unfair competition under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

A. We examine whether the name of the Games was widely known domestically as the Plaintiff’s business mark.

1) Whether a mark indicating another person's business is widely known in the Republic of Korea under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is a first priority standard to determine the use period, method, form, quantity of use, scope of business, etc., the actual circumstances of the business, and whether it is objectively known under the social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6834, Nov. 25, 200