서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.14 2018고정2442



Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.


Punishment of the crime

From November 4, 2016 to March 16, 2018, the Defendant already operated a plastic surgery from 10th to 10th of the Gangnam-gu Seoul building in Gangnam-gu, and infringed on the trademark right of others by operating a hospital with the trade name of “E-type surgery”, which is similar to the trademark “E” registered as a designated service, such as hospital business, sexual surgery business, etc. on July 25, 2006. The Defendant already used the signboard marked “E-type surgery” and “E-type surgery” as a trademark similar to the trademark “E”, and operating the hospital on the hospital website (F) with the trade name of “E-type surgery” and “E-type/type/type/non-party/department”.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A complaint (including attached documents);

1. Reporting on investigation results and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to advisory opinions;

1. Article 230 of the Trademark Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. On January 19, 2018, the Defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of trademark infringement since the victim was unaware of the fact that he had registered the trademark “E” before being served with a copy of the written application for provisional disposition prohibiting the use of the trademark filed by the victim at the Seoul Central District Court.

In addition, the defendant applied for trademark registration of GJ "E", etc. on May 11, 2017, but received a decision of rejection on the grounds that the trademark is registered for the same type of business. He also applied for trademark registration of "E MP" on October 23, 2017, and then received a decision of rejection on the same ground, it can be recognized that the defendant was aware of the infringement of the trademark right of the victim at the latest around May 11, 2017.

The above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

2. In addition, the Defendant has not used the registered trademark “E” for a sex outdoor business, which is a designated service business type, for at least three years without justifiable grounds.