logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.26 2015고정333
디자인보호법위반등
Text

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

Reasons

1. Defendant A is the intra-company director of Overcheon-si E Co., Ltd., and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of cosmetic-related products wholesale, retail, trade, etc.

As the representative director of G, the victim F is a person who manufactures and sells a single shampoo and shamping (hereinafter “victim’s shampoo and brining”). He completed the registration of a new shrining (registration number M) with the name of H device “I” and completed the registration of the design (registration number) with the name of K goods “L”.

1. The Defendant received the victim’s shampoo and shampoo supplied by the victim and sold (export) to an enterprise located in Japan, and received a request from the above Japanese company to make and deliver the victim’s shampoo and shampoo similar to the victim’s shampoo and brin.

Accordingly, on May 2007, the Defendant found N, the president of the manufacturing company, who was known to the Defendant, and demanded N to present the victim’s shampoo and shoo and brine, and to manufacture similar products, and N to manufacture the shampoo and shrine, which was known to the general public.

O made a request for the manufacture of shampoo and brinsh with the use of the gold mold.

In addition, from May 2007 to May 2008, the Defendant received approximately 200,000 shampoo and shampoo and shrinse (a total of supply unit price of KRW 35,00,000) from the O and sold them to the Japanese company (export) in substance with the victim’s shampoo and shampoo and shrinse, the composition, function, and appearance of which are the same and similar to the same.

As a result, the Defendant infringed the victim's right to use the victim's secret (claim Nos. 1, 2, 3) and design right.

2. The Defendant Company B, from May 2007 to May 2008, at the above date, at the above location, and between May 2008, the Defendant, the representative of the Defendant, requested N to manufacture shampoo and shampoo and shamper which are substantially identical and similar in the victim’s shampoo and shamper and its composition, function and appearance, and approximately 20,000 of the above shamper and shamper through N andO (unit price for supply).

arrow