1. The Defendant (Appointed Party)’s High Court Branch Decision 2015Gahap72804 decided September 8, 2016 (the main office) against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who registered his/her business with the trade name C and manufactures and sells teas, etc. using a specific registered trademark, etc. (hereinafter “instant registered trademark, etc.”).

The Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) is a company that operates metal structures and creative construction business, etc.; D is one of the actual operators of the Defendant; and the Selection E is the representative director of the Defendant.

B. Around March 2010, the Defendant and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) concluded an agency contract with the Plaintiff on April 25, 2010.

C. Around November 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. on the ground that “(i) the Defendant, etc. committed an act infringing the Plaintiff’s trademark right by using marks identical or similar to the instant registered trademark, etc. without the right to use the instant registered trademark, etc.; (ii) the Defendant, etc. is obligated to pay damages of KRW 100 million for damages caused by the said infringement to the Plaintiff; and (iii) the Defendant, etc., without the Plaintiff’s permission, manufactured and sold the instant registered trademark or similar trademark, which is widely known to the Republic of Korea, and thereby causing confusion between the said products and the Plaintiff’s products; and thus, the Defendant, etc., sought prohibition of unfair competition.”

In this case, the plaintiff's defendant et al. suffered loss due to the failure of the defendant et al. to sell the products kept by the defendant et al. upon the plaintiff's application for provisional injunction, and the plaintiff's unilateral suspension of use of trademark rights.

At present, the defendant is now in accordance with the Office.