A. From around 1997, the Plaintiff is a company that directly produces works of art and photographs, such as paintings, photographs, characters, and paintings, and engages in the business of directly manufacturing them or rendering services in the Plaintiff’s possession, through the homepage C.

B. The Plaintiff’s employees produced a list, such as the right-hand picture, through the division of industry (hereinafter “the instant work”), and published it on the C website.

C. The defendant, who is engaged in the advertising business, produced a trademark in the same form as the left-hand picture (hereinafter “instant trademark”) using the instant copyrighted work upon the request of D to create and deliver the trademark design related to the restaurant, and D applied for the trademark of this case to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and registered the said trademark.

The Plaintiff discovered that the instant copyrighted works of this case were used while searching the trademark which was filed through the Korean Intellectual Property Office website.

Accordingly, on August 5, 2016, the Plaintiff requested D to cancel the trademark registration and suspend the use of the trademark since the copyright of this case was infringed, and requested D to the same effect as the Defendant on August 17, 2016.

E. As the Defendant or D did not take any particular measure even upon receiving the aforementioned request, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Daejeon Police Station as a violation of the Copyright Act on December 16, 2016, and the said case was transferred to the Daejeon Police Station having jurisdiction over the Defendant’s domicile and rendered a decision of suspending indictment on the condition of copyright education against the Defendant on August 25, 2017.

F. The registration of the trademark of this case is now cancelled.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, evidence 7-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s trademark of this case is alleged.