No person shall use a trademark identical with another person's registered trademark on goods similar to the designated goods, or use a trademark similar to another person's registered trademark on goods similar to the designated goods.

Nevertheless, from March 2, 2016 to April 19, 2016, the Defendant used NAV SP farms, 11 times, fashion, Gmarket, and C stores located in the above address, "F similar to "E, the registered trademark of the victim D", which is designated as the designated goods of the victim's trademark.

2. According to the records, the victim’s registered trademark is “(trademark registration number G)” or “(trademark service registration number H)” and the defendant used the mark “I”, “F” or “F” for advertisement of the household in which he sells the trademark. However, if compared with the part of the victim’s registered trademark with the part of “” among the marks used by the defendant, their appearance or name differs and if compared with the part of “”, the two trademarks are not similar (Supreme Court Decision 2017Hu2932 Decided September 13, 2018).

Therefore, all marks recognized as being used by the defendant cannot be deemed similar to one of the above registered trademarks of the injured party. The evidence submitted in this case alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant used a trademark similar to the registered trademark of the injured party, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered after the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is to be publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided