beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.03.28 2018고단8369

디자인보호법위반등

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for 6 months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 10,000,000 won.

However, the defendant A.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is an enterprise engaged in crowdfunding and floor construction in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and Defendant A is the representative director of the above company.

The victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "victim Co., Ltd.") stated in the indictment that P, the representative director of the corporation, is the owner of the right to use the press access hole registered as G with the F Korean Intellectual Property Office, the utility model right holder of the utility model on the press system using the press access hole registered as registration number G with the F Korean Intellectual Property Office, the J design registered as registration number I with the H Intellectual Property Office, and the design right of M design registered as registration number L with the K Intellectual Property Office, as the owner of the right to use the design, but D Co., Ltd. was transferred the right from P, the owner of the right to use the design on February 26, 2016.

(Investigation Records 34, 35, 41, 42). The victim of the infringement of design right was changed from P to D to D, and there is no impediment to guaranteeing the defendants' right of defense. Thus, the above change of criminal facts is recognized.

1. On October 11, 2017, Defendant A manufactured and sold 3,00 N, similar to the above utility model and design registered by the injured company, at the Defendant Company’s office, and manufactured and sold Poves using “J similar to the J design registered by the injured company and the injured company from June 2017 to May 2018.”

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the design right and utility model right of the victim company.

2. Defendant B, a representative director of the Defendant, neglected to exercise due care and supervision over the relevant business in order to prevent such violation, even though he/she infringed the design right and utility model right of the victim company as above in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A-.