The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) provides for “the act of causing confusion with another person’s goods by using things identical or similar to another person’s name, trade name, trademark, containers and packages of goods, and other marks widely known in the Republic of Korea, or by selling, distributing, importing, and exporting goods using such things.”

Here, whether a mark indicating another person's goods is widely known in the Republic of Korea or widely known in the context of its use period, method, mode, quantity, scope of use, scope of transaction, etc., and whether it is objectively widely known under the generally accepted social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10562, Sept. 11, 2008). The term "act of causing confusion with another person's goods" includes not only cases where the origin of the goods is mistaken, but also cases where ordinary consumers or traders believe that it is closely related to capital, organization, etc. between the subject of the mark of goods and users by using a mark identical or similar to the mark of goods widely known in the Republic of Korea, but also cases where it constitutes "act of causing confusion with another person's goods." The determination of whether it constitutes "act of causing confusion with another person's goods" should be made by taking into account the degree of recognition of the mark of goods, degree of similarity of marks, degree of similarity of goods, similarity of goods, similarity of goods and customer's.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8459, Apr. 27, 2007). The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence of employment.