서비스표권침해금지
1. The Defendant’s mark “” on the Internet homepage, Internet camera, and Internet run by the Defendant.
1. Marks indicating the facts of recognition: Date of application/registration date/registration number: D/ E/F-designated service business, which were classified and registered under Chapters 112 (such as entry into a private teaching institute management business, Zumbem management business, and foreign language private teaching institute management business, etc.) on September 27, 2007;
: From October 6, 200 to October 6, 200, both the Plaintiff and C share the service mark right on the service mark (hereinafter “instant service mark”) as follows, including the business of arranging the trade in the educational tape, the business of arranging the trade in the educational books, the business of arranging the trade in the educational books - the business of private teaching institutes for entry, the business of management of Haumbem Private Teaching Institutes, and the business of
(E) Each co-ownership shall be presumed to be equal. The Plaintiff, in 1993, has opened a Cheongnam-do Private Teaching Institute and has operated the Cheongnam-do Private Teaching Institute up to now.
The Defendant, from October 209 to October 1, 2009, operated a private teaching institute subject to middle and high school students under the trade name, which is Cheongdomin Private Teaching Institutes, and used the marks indicated in paragraph (1) of the disposition (hereinafter “Defendant’s mark”) on signboards, placards, printed materials, etc. for the operation of the said private teaching institute.
The Defendant’s sales from the operation of the above private teaching institute are KRW 684,065,00 from 200 to 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 4-1 through 7, and the fact-finding with respect to the Chuncheon Tax Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant’s mark using the service mark is similar to the mark of the instant service mark in light of the concept of external appearance, and the Cheongwon Institute operated by the Defendant is similar to the designated service business of the instant service mark right as a private teaching institute for middle and high school students.
Therefore, the Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s mark in operating the Cheongwon Institute is an act of infringing the instant service mark right.
3. If so, the plaintiff is one of the co-owners of the service mark right of this case, and the defendant is the same as the Disposition No. 1, pursuant to Articles 65 and 2(3) of the Trademark Act.