Defendant

Kim Jong-Gyeong

Law Firm Yang Constitutional Court Decision 201

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Seized evidence 1 or 2 shall be confiscated.

1. Violation of the Trademark Act;

No person shall use a trademark identical with the registered trademark of another person on goods similar to the designated goods, and use a trademark similar to the registered trademark of another person on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods

The Defendant is a person who operates a store of the first floor located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter address omitted), and manufactures and sells bags. The Defendant attempted to obtain unjust profits by using a personal map in the market secured through a trademark (Monogram Clams Trak) in attached Form 1, the trademark of which is registered by the Defendant, using a figure map in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “Monogram Crank”) and other similar trademarks.

From May 2009 to October 23, 2009, the Defendant sold 600,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, with a trademark attached to the attached Form 2, which is similar to the figure trademark in the attached Form 1 attached to the "LOUIIS VTON" and registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and sold 880,00,000,000,000,000,000 won, and 170,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the purpose of selling the above "○○○○○" store operated by the Defendant.

2. Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act;

No person shall cause confusion with another person's goods or impair the distinctiveness or reputation of another person's mark by using any name, trade name, trademark, container or package of goods, or other goods identical or similar to another person's mark widely known in the Republic of Korea, or by selling, distributing, importing, or exporting goods using such goods.

The Defendant, as described in the above 1.1., manufactured and sold bags and bags using diagrams similar to the lubage trademark, and caused them to confuse the processed excreta with products, or damaged the distinctiveness or reputation of the trademark.

The registration number of the Korean Intellectual Property Office of the trademark right holder contained in the main sentence and the registration number of the trademark registration number of the relevant counterfeit product "Fluglug Guide Maglug Guides" (registration No. 1 omitted)

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Records of seizure by prosecution;

1. Investigative reports (court rulings on prohibition of infringement on trademark rights), investigation reports (report attached to applications related to infringement on intellectual property rights), investigation reports (report attached to decisions on detention houses as design, etc.), investigation reports (report attached to decisions on detention houses as design, etc.), and reports on investigation, advice

1. Investigation report (fields of execution of a warrant of seizure, photographs of execution and attachment report on seized articles), investigation report (report on attachment of excreta and sabobs together with sags);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 93 of the Trademark Act, Article 18(3)1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 2 subparag. 1(a) and (c), and each choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes within the scope of Aggregate of Long-term Punishment for Crimes of Violation of Trademark Act with Aggravation of Punishment, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Aggravation of Punishment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( normal consideration, such as the absence of a record of sentence imposed on the defendant, and the destruction of the original plate after the control of this case)

1. Confiscation;

Article 97-2(1) of the Trademark Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Dogsan