beta
Escopics
Defendant
Appellant. An appellant
Defendant
Prosecutor
limited to the extent of transfer
Judgment of the lower court
Suwon District Court Decision 2004 High Court Decision 572 delivered on August 31, 2005
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The gist of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) even if the Defendant used the instant service mark without entering into a contract with Hando Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Uyland”), Nonindicted 1, the representative director of Hanland, lost Nonindicted 2 in the lawsuit claiming transfer registration of the exclusive license on the instant service mark right filed by Nonindicted 1 against Nonindicted 2; (b) so long as Nonindicted 2 was recognized as exclusive licensee, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have infringed on the Defendant’s right to use the service mark; and (c) the Defendant distributed the printed articles to the president of the English Institute of English in Hando on three occasions, on the following occasions; (d) notwithstanding the purport that Nonindicted 1 did not have exclusive license on the right to use the instant service mark, the lower court convicted Nonindicted 1 of all the facts charged, and thus, was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
However, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's right to use the service mark of this case was completed on March 28, 196 as the right holder of the service mark of this case ("Wonland"), and the non-indicted 2's right to use the service mark of this case was registered on September 18, 201, and the non-indicted 2's right to use the service mark of this case was completed on August 6, 197. The non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's right to use the service mark of this case's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's right to use the service mark of this case's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's right to use.
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)