Whether a person who manufactures and sells orders for uniforms uses a signboard "DIOR" and can be deemed to have caused confusion with the goods of the owner of the trademark right for the purpose of unfair competition.

Even if the defendant used signboards, etc. marked in English as "DIOR" outside of the two uniforms while opening the two uniforms and manufacturing and selling the uniforms upon the customer's order, it is reasonable to view that the transaction of goods with the defendant is conducted in trust with the credit and manufacturing technology of the defendant's individual store in light of the above business conditions, and it is difficult to view that the defendant had the purpose of unfair competition with the defendant, or that the owner of the dIOR, which is a registered trademark of the uniforms manufactured and supplied by the defendant's store, was confused and confused with the two uniforms produced and supplied by the owner of the trademark right of DI

Articles 2 and 8 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 84No2326 delivered on June 29, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the records, it is reasonable to view that the transaction of goods with the Defendant was conducted in trust of the credit and manufacturing technology of the individual shop in light of the actual condition of the business, since the Defendant opened a store (native store) at the place specified in the facts charged and operated the business of manufacturing and selling the uniforms upon the customer’s order. It is difficult to view that the Defendant used the signboards, etc. marked outside the two-way store in English, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute an unfair competition purpose, or that the owner of the trademark right of DIR, which is a registered trademark of DIR, manufactured and supplied the uniforms produced by the owner of the trademark at the shop of the Defendant. In the same purport, the lower court’s decision of the first instance which upheld the judgment of not guilty on the ground that the Defendant did not have caused confusion with the goods of another person is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit or since it is not possible to do so.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)