A. On April 30, 2005, the Plaintiff started the business of selling spati and spati with the trade name “F” in Yeongi-Gun E, Chungcheongnam-gun, and transferred the store to Sejong Special Self-Governing City, Sejong Special Self-Governing City and 1st floor at a level of 10 meters from the date of 2009, and then is running the business of selling spati and spati.

B. On March 28, 2016, the Defendant began to engage in the sales of spati and spati with the trade name “D” in Sejong Special Self-Governing City C and 106-1 located within approximately 100 meters from the foregoing place, as follows:

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are running a business mainly by receiving telephone and delivering it, and are promoting the business by dividing the leaflets in which Qua Newcom is written.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Article 23(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “No person shall use a trade name which may mislead general consumers as to the business of another person for an improper purpose.” In determining which trade name may mislead or confuse general consumers as to the business entity, the whole trade name shall be compared and observed by comparing and observing the two trade names, and in determining which the trade name may cause them to mislead or confuse the business entity, it shall comprehensively take into account whether ordinary consumers think that the business entity is closely related to each other.

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64757 Decided August 21, 2008). B.

Judgment

The term “H”, “F”, and “D” are only identical in the order of the association with the word “I” and the word “I” indicating that they are stores selling the recipient, and in particular, the location of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s store is close.