logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.02.04 2015고단639
상표법위반등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, for ten months, for defendant B, and for four months, for each of the defendants C.

(b).

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant B worked as the head of the H’s business division in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City G from May 2012 to January 2014, 2014, Defendant B is the representative of the I company located in Jung-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City. Defendant B is the representative of the I company located in Jung-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.

1. A person who intends to manufacture all or part of the cosmetics for joint crimes (violation of the Act) committed by Defendant A and B and a person who intends to distribute and sell the manufactured cosmetics shall respectively register with the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister;

The Defendants conspired to register the manufacture and sale business of cosmetics without registering the manufacture and sale business, and Defendant B was aware of it in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan CityJ from February 22, 2014 to May 17, 2014, and Defendant B knew of it.

Using L's equipment at night, 12 tons of cosmetic content (one-time cream) was manufactured in total at night at night, and Defendant A sold this.

2. Defendant A’s violation of the Trademark Act: (a) around May 17, 2014, at the store located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul; (b) KRW 187,400,00, the trademark of the Republic of Korea, registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and the forged cosmetics, on which the trademark is indicated, sold at KRW 77,40,00,00 to Chinese merchants P; and (c) the trademark right holder is the H in Q. However, the above trademark right holder is clearly written in the indictment, because it is apparent that Q., the representative of R, thereby doing so.

The trademark right was infringed.

3. Defendant B’s occupational breach of trust, around February 2014, made a prescription (such as a manual, record, etc.) on the O contents in which the volume of each raw material used by H, the victim of the occupational breach of trust, as well as manufacturing a set of a set of 1 ton (the above O shocking material) by using the above L’s equipment from around that time to May 17, 2014, by manufacturing a set of 12 ton total sum of 12 tons from around 2 times during the period from around 2014 to around 17, 2014.

The defendant is on duty.

arrow