logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.02.18 2015나28212
디자인권침해금지 등
Text

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The total costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the lawsuit are borne by the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts that have no dispute, Gap evidence, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7, 28, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 15 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. Plaintiff Chhogra, a corporation in the United States, the main purpose of which is to develop medicines, and develop and sell a number of drugs, including Biagra (hereinafter “Bagra”), which is non-technical disorder treatment chemicals. The marks listed in the attached Table 2, which combines colors in three-dimensional shapes, shall be applied on November 6, 2003, and completed registration on February 17, 2005, following the decision of registration on February 5, 2005.

[Registration Number No. 608773, (three-dimensional trademark, color trademark) and hereinafter “instant registered trademark”). B.

Plaintiff

Korean Commercial Law Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Korean Commercial Law”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Korean Commercial Law”) exclusively imports and sells the medicines produced by Plaintiff Chyl-Woz and Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Korean Commercial Law”) from around 1998.

C. On May 18, 2012, the Defendant, as indicated in attached Table 1 List 1, produced, sold, and advertised “50 milligrams of arms and arms” (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) and “100 milligrams of arms and arms” (hereinafter “Defendant 2”, and collectively “Defendant 1 and 2”) as indicated in attached Table 1 List 1, which is a treating product with visual function disorder, as well as the registration of the identification mark by drug item.

2. Issues of the instant case

A. Whether the Defendant’s trademark right infringement against Plaintiff C, who is Plaintiff C, is identical or similar to that of the instant registered trademark and the Defendant’s products

B. Whether the production, transfer, etc. of the defendant's products constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The defendant's interest is the plaintiff.

arrow