상표권침해금지 등 청구
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a service mark holder who filed an application for the service mark “” (the service mark indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s service mark”) with the content indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table B as the designated goods or the designated service business and completed registration as C registration number D.
B. The Defendant mainly used the mark “ ” or “ ” (hereinafter “Defendant’s mark”) (hereinafter “Defendant’s business mark”) that is part of the product photographs sold on the above site, as a company engaged in electronic commerce in the website “m.s. hop inters. inters. Sp.com.com” and “human-frequency mobile apps.com.” (attached Form 4; hereinafter “Defendant’s business website”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff’s service mark and the Defendant’s Defendant’s mark are similar to the appearance of the same person in English scrap metal “TIMF SALE”, and the name is also identical to “TIMF SALE”, and both are generally related to shopping, thereby recognizing similarity of concepts. Both are likely to cause mistake and confusion as to the source of trade service. Accordingly, the Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s mark constitutes an infringement of the right to use the service mark, and thus, the Defendant sought prohibition of infringement of the right to use the service mark, such as the written claim against the Defendant.
B. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not use the Defendant’s mark for the purpose of indicating the source of service business. 2) The Plaintiff’s service mark falls under Article 51(1)2 of the Trademark Act and thus does not have the effect of the right to use the service mark.
3. Determination
A. According to the facts as to whether the Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s mark constitutes the use of the service mark, the Defendant’s Defendant’s use of the mark is used.