부정경쟁방지및영업비밀보호에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) that the Defendant had already acquired mutual recognition of the existence of the trade name, which is the member store of Dokdo Island Island, at the time of operating a dedicated restaurant using the trade name "E", but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that it denied the mutual recognition of the trade name, and thus, acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case.
2. The Defendant, from January 9, 2014 to June 6, 2015, committed an unfair competitive act that leads to confusion with the business activities of the Defendant by operating a cream specialized restaurant using the trade name, the same as or similar to “E,” the trade name of the victim's Dokdo franchise store in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
3. The judgment of the court below is reasonable to interpret the term " domestically widely known" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter only referred to as the "Unfair Competition Prevention Act") to mean that the trade name "domination of Dokdo Island" refers to the so-called "low name" that is widely known to the general public other than the relevant traders in addition to the relevant traders beyond the "level of knowledge" known to both the traders or consumers within the scope of domestic discharge or a certain area. Since the trade name "domination of Dokdo Island" cannot be deemed to have reached the degree of well-knownness as the damaged company's business mark, the above trade name constitutes a business mark subject to protection under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, or the defendant was intentional in violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
The instant charges were acquitted on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
4. Determination on whether a deliberation was made
(1) Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "the name, trade name, trademark, and trademark of any other person widely known in Korea" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.