In a case where Foreign Company A, a trademark right holder of the registered trademark “,” making a contract to establish an exclusive license for the registered trademark “,” which is the amount of precious metal products as designated goods, entered into with Company B for one year, and agreed to automatically renew the license once a year without giving written notice that Company A would not renew the license by one month prior to the establishment of the exclusive license; and where Company B filed an application for prohibition and disuse against Company B, etc. against the infringement on the exclusive license for the registered trademark, the case holding that the person who infringed on the exclusive license does not constitute a third party as prescribed by the amended provisions of Article 58(1)1 of the former Trademark Act, and even if Company B did not establish the exclusive license, he/she may exercise the right to prohibit and discard against the infringement on the exclusive license for the registered trademark.

A foreign company, a trademark right holder of the registered trademark “,” which is the precious metal amount, as designated goods, entered into a contract to establish an exclusive license for the registered trademark “,” and agreed to automatically renew the period of use every one year without giving written notice that Company A would not renew the license by one month prior to the establishment of the exclusive license. However, even if Company B did not register the exclusive license, it sought prohibition and disuse against Company B, etc. as to the infringement of the exclusive license for the registered trademark.

The case holding that the above contract to establish an exclusive license is subject to the amended provision of Article 58 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016) in accordance with the transitional provision of the Addenda to the amended Trademark Act (Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016), and the "registration of establishment of an exclusive license" under Article 58 (1) 1 of the above Act is not a requirement for establishment, but a requirement for counterclaim against a third party, and the "third party", which cannot be asserted against a third party without registration, is merely a third party who has legitimate interest in claiming the lack of registration of establishment of an exclusive license, such as where he/she acquires a legal status that cannot be compatible with the status of an exclusive licensee with the establishment of the above exclusive license, and a person who infringed the right to exclusive license does not constitute a third party, and thus, is not a person who infringed the right to exclusive license.

Article 56(1)2 of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 1113, Dec. 2, 2011; see current Article 96(1)2); Article 58(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 201; see current Article 100(1)1); Article 1 and 3 of the Addenda (Amended by Act No. 11113, Dec. 2, 201); Article 107(1) and (2) of the Trademark Act

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 decided May 1, 2001

Defendant 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Gangnam, Attorneys Ha-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da52949, 56196 Decided July 7, 2017

July 20, 2018

upon request by this court for a change in exchange:

1. As between Defendant 2 and Defendant 4, Defendants 2 and 4, as between Plaintiff Other Skiki Korea Co., Ltd.:

(a) be prohibited from transferring or delivering, or displaying or delivering for the purpose of transfer or delivery, the marks listed in the Schedule I, indicating the same marks as precious metals and bail products, or displaying, exporting or importing for the purpose of delivery;

(b) No marks listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be indicated in the packaging of precious metal and release products of the same kind, or in the advertisement, price list, or transaction documents of the same product;

(c) destruction of finished products, semi-finished products (goods having a completed structure, which do not yet reach the completion of the works) as described in paragraph (a) above in storage or display in a factory, office, store, store, place of business, warehouse, or warehouse, and packaging, advertising, fixed price table, and transaction documents as described in paragraph (b) above.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants 1 and 3 and the remaining claims against the defendants 2 and 4 of other private key Korea Co., Ltd. are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total costs of litigation, the part arising between the Plaintiffs, Defendant 1, and Defendant 3 are borne by the Plaintiffs, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs, other Korea Co., Ltd. and Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 is borne by the said Plaintiffs, and the remaining 60% by the said Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

1. The Defendants [the Defendants are between Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 (hereinafter “Plaintiff Other Skiki Korea”) and Plaintiff other Skiki Korea Co., Ltd.];

(a) judgment as referred to in Section 1-A of the Disposition;

B. It is so decided as per Disposition No. 1-b.

(c) Decision 1(c) of the Disposition;

(d) not manufacture each product listed in the Schedule 2 or sell, distribute, import, or export the same product; and

(e) disposal of finished products and semi-finished products described in paragraph (d) above in storage or display in a factory, office, store, place of business, warehouse, or warehouse.

2. Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 shall pay to the Plaintiffs, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 shall pay to the Plaintiffs, and each of them shall be 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the day of full payment.

Purport of appeal

A judgment, such as paragraph (1), shall be sought.

In light of the following facts, the Plaintiffs’ statements on the amendment of the purport of the claim and the amendment of the purport of the appeal made on July 20, 2018 at the second date for pleading of the court. ① On the aforementioned date for pleading, the Plaintiff Tayki (hereinafter “Plaintiff Tayki”) changed the purport of the claim to Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 in exchange, as provided in paragraph (1) of the claim against the Defendants, with respect to the claim for prohibition and abandonment against Defendant 1 and Defendant 3. ② The Plaintiff Tayki Korea appealed appealed appealed against Defendant 2 and Defendant 4, but voluntarily withdrawn the appeal on June 26, 2018. Accordingly, the purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal made against Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 on the said date for pleading of pleading has no effect.)

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

A. Case history

The reasons for the plaintiffs' claims, the first instance court, and the appeal are as follows. ① The first instance court partly accepted the claim for prohibition and destruction of each mark listed in the attached Table 1 against Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 and the claim for prohibition and destruction of each product listed in the attached Table 2 against the plaintiffs, and the above Defendants did not appeal. ② The claim for prohibition and destruction of each mark listed in the attached Table 1 against the plaintiffs 1 and defendant 3, and the first instance court dismissed all the claim for prohibition and destruction of each mark listed in the attached Table 1 against the plaintiffs 1 and defendant 3, and the claim for prohibition and destruction of each product listed in the attached Table 2 against the plaintiffs, and the same claim for prohibition and destruction against the defendants listed in the plaintiff 1 and defendant 3, and the correction of the purport of the claim as stated in paragraph 1 after the plaintiffs appealed. ③ The first instance court partially accepted the claim for damages against the plaintiffs 2 and defendant 4, and some other appeals were withdrawn. The plaintiffs appealed, but the appeal by the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 3 were dismissed.

B. Sub-determination

In light of the above circumstances, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim part of the preceding paragraph (2) that the plaintiffs changed in exchange in this court, i.e., the claim for prohibition and disuse of each mark listed in the attached Table 1 against Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, and the claim for prohibition and disuse of each product listed in the attached Table 2 list, and the claim for prohibition and disuse of each product listed in the attached Table 2 against the defendants of other Sariki

2. Basic facts

A. Status and relationship of the plaintiffs

1) The Plaintiff Tagki is a trademark right holder of the trademark below (hereinafter “instant registered trademark”).

A) Date of application/registration date/registration number: August 5, 2009/ January 19, 2011/ (to omit a trademark registration number)

B) Composition:

(c) Designated goods: Bolls and their hairs of Category 14 classified into goods, precious metal liquids, lump-sum materials for bail, precious metal products oral formula, knife, knifs, etc.

2) On November 1, 2009, Plaintiff Tagki concluded a contract to establish an exclusive license for the instant registered trademark (hereinafter “instant exclusive license contract”). At the time, the Plaintiffs agreed to automatically renew the instant exclusive license every one year without giving written notice that the period of use shall be one year from November 1, 2009, but it shall not be renewed one month before Plaintiff Tagki Korea. Plaintiff Tagki Korea imports and sells the following products (hereinafter “Plaintiff products”) from Plaintiff Tagki from around that time:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Status and relationship of the Defendants

1) From 2014 to 2014, Defendant 4 operated a brog (hereinafter “instant brog”) with the name “○○○○○○” (hereinafter “Defendant 4”) named as the “(Internet address omitted), supplied each product listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 from Defendant 2 (hereinafter “Defendant products”) and sold it through the instant brogs. At the time, the said Defendants advertised Defendant products with the name “TASKI” and displayed the Defendant products with the mark “TASKI” on the Defendant’s products.

2) Meanwhile, Defendant 1 is the father of Defendant 4, and Defendant 3 is the father of Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 manufactures and sells bail products with the trade name “(mutual name omitted)” on the first floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted) △△△ Complex.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7-13, 16-18, 21 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Claim for prohibition and destruction of each mark listed in the separate sheet No. 1 against Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 by the Plaintiff other company Korea

A. The plaintiff's right to prohibit and discard other private key Korea

1) In the instant case where the Plaintiff-Saki Korea voluntarily acknowledges the fact that the exclusive license was not established and registered, the question is whether the said Plaintiff may exercise the right to prohibit and discard the right to use the registered trademark of this case.

2) Article 56(1)2 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 11113, Dec. 2, 2011) provides that “the establishment of an exclusive license shall not take effect unless the establishment of the exclusive license is registered.” The former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016) deleted the aforementioned provision, and Article 58(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 201); and Articles 1 and 3 of the Addenda to the amended Trademark Act (Act No. 11113, Dec. 2, 2011) provide that “the establishment, alteration, or transfer of a letter of exclusive license between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America on March 15, 2012 (Article 1 and 58 of the Addenda to the amended Trademark Act) shall apply from the date of entry into force of the Act.”

3) As seen earlier, the instant exclusive license contract was concluded on November 1, 2009 and automatically renewed every one year, unless there is a written notice of the Plaintiff’s refusal to renew the license. It shall be deemed that the instant exclusive license was renewed on November 1, 2012 without such written notice. As such, the instant exclusive license granted or revised after March 15, 2012, and is subject to the amended provisions of Article 58(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016) in accordance with the transitional provisions of the Addenda to the amended Trademark Act (Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016).

4) However, the "registration of establishment of an exclusive license" under Article 58 (1) 1 of the above Act is not an effective requirement for establishment, but is merely a requirement for setting up against a third party. The "third party", which cannot be set up against a third party unless registered, is limited to a third party who has a legitimate interest in claiming the deficiency in registration of establishment of the exclusive license, such as where he/she acquires a legal status that cannot be set up against a third party with regard to the establishment of the exclusive license, and the person who infringed the exclusive license does not constitute a third party mentioned above.

5) Therefore, it is reasonable to view that, even if the Plaintiff did not register the establishment of the exclusive license, it is possible to exercise the right of prohibition and disuse against the infringement of the exclusive license on the instant registered trademark.

(b) Infringement of trademark rights;

1) As seen earlier, Defendant 4 and Defendant 2 sold the Defendant’s products through the instant tables, indicated the Defendant’s products with “TASK” and “TASK,” etc. similar to the instant registered trademark, and advertised the Defendant’s products with a mark similar to the instant registered trademark, which is “TASKI,” and sold the Defendant’s products (in relation to the similarity of marks as seen above, there is no particular dispute between the Plaintiff SaS Korea and the Defendants).

2) Accordingly, Defendant 4 and Defendant 2 jointly infringed the Plaintiff’s exclusive license on the instant registered trademark of other private key Korea.

(c) Prohibitions and Disposal Obligations;

1) Defendants 2 and 4 shall not transfer, deliver, transfer, or import for the purpose of transfer or delivery the same product as indicated on precious metals and bail products, or as indicated on the same package, which are similar to the registered trademark of this case. ② The marks listed in the attached table No. 1 shall not be indicated on the packaging of precious metals and bail products or on the same product, advertisement, price list, or transaction documents, and ③ the finished product of precious metals and bail products, semi-finished products (which are equipped with the completed structure, and which do not yet come to the completion), and the aforementioned packaging, advertisement, price list, and transaction documents are liable to destroy transaction documents.

2) As long as the above Plaintiff received a request for prohibition and disuse based on the Trademark Act, which is selected by the above Plaintiff, the remaining Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) shall not be separately determined on the request for prohibition and disuse.

4. The plaintiffs' claim against defendant 1

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) When Defendant 1, along with Defendant 4, sold Defendant 1’s products similar to the Plaintiff’s products, which are identical to the Plaintiff’s products, which are the Plaintiff’s product marks widely known in the Republic of Korea through the instant Blogs, Defendant 1 advertised the Defendant’s products by displaying “TASK” and “TASK” similar to the instant registered trademark. In addition, Defendant 1 sold the trademarks similar to the instant registered trademark to the Defendant’s products.

2) Accordingly, Defendant 1, in collaboration with Defendant 4, infringed the trademark rights of other company and the exclusive license of Plaintiff other company Korea as to the instant registered trademark, and committed an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(a), (c), and (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Thus, Defendant 1, as to the marks listed in the separate sheet No. 1, sought an selective prohibition and abolition under the Trademark Act or under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act as to the marks listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and seek prohibition and abolition under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act as to each product listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (Defendant products).

B. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the statements in Gap evidence 7, 10, and 19, as well as the result of the order to submit financial information to our banks and the entire purport of the pleadings, the fact that the account number and the business operator number of defendant 1 are indicated on the bottom of the instant Blololob page; that from October 2014 to December 2015, Defendant 1 transferred KRW 2,725,000 from the bank account in the name of defendant 2 to the account in the name of defendant 2; and that from February 2015 to December 2015, Defendant 1’s account in the name of defendant 4 to the sum of KRW 7,79,500 can be recognized.

2) However, in light of the fact that Defendant 1 sold separate cosmetics via Defendant 4’s instant tables from around September 2010, when Defendant 1 operated the skin management company from around September 2010, the above fact-finding alone is insufficient to presume the above argument that Defendant 1 jointly with Defendant 4 that Defendant 1 infringed the Plaintiff’s trademark right and the Plaintiff’s exclusive license and engaged in unfair competition acts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise (the Plaintiff, in light of the fact that Defendant 4’s words “vegetable” on the instant block operated by Defendant 4, should be deemed to have been prepared by Defendant 1, who is the representative of Defendant 4, and thus, Defendant 1 should also be deemed to have participated in the infringement of trademark rights, etc., although Defendant 4 appears to have participated only in Defendant 2).

3) Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertions seeking prohibition and abolition against Defendant 1 cannot be accepted.

5. The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant 3

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since Defendant 3 participated in Defendant 2’s infringement, Defendant 3 seeks the prohibition and abolition under the Trademark Act or the Unfair Competition Prevention Act on the marks listed in the attached Table 1 attached hereto, and seek the prohibition and abolition under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act on each product listed in the attached Table 2 list (Defendant products).

B. Determination

1) According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 8, 13, and 16, Eul evidence Nos. 11 and the whole pleadings, it is recognized that Defendant 2 performed the duty of release on bail from January 10, 2016 to Defendant 3 (mutual name No. 1 omitted), and that the delivery of Defendant products was made through the invoice of the above (mutual name No. 1 omitted).

2) However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 10, 18, 31, 36, 47, Eul evidence Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11, Defendant 2 stated, in the course of interrogation, that "Jinju sought from the father's seat to pay back the mold at cost, and then sentenced to defendant 4." Defendant 2, from August 15, 2014 to January 27, 2015, Defendant 2 stated, "(mutual name No. 2 omitted)" as "(mutual name No. 3 omitted), and Defendant 2, from July 4, 2015 to "(mutual name No. 3 omitted)" as "business owner, who independently operated the business from September 1, 2015," and Defendant 2, who sold the product to Defendant 2, cannot be deemed to have separately participated in the act of infringement."

3) Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion seeking prohibition and abolition against Defendant 3.

6. The plaintiffs' claim against Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 for prohibition and destruction of each product listed in attached Table 2.

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Of the Plaintiff’s products, the following parts (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s product form”) constitute the outcome made with the Plaintiffs’ product marks or efforts widely known in Korea, or the Plaintiffs’ considerable investment or effort.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

2) However, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 sold the Defendant’s products similar to the Plaintiff’s products containing the Plaintiff’s product form through the instant Blogs (attached Form 2), thereby causing confusion with the Plaintiff’s products. Moreover, such sales infringed the Plaintiffs’ economic interest by using the Plaintiff’s product form without permission.

3) Accordingly, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4, as a performance of the duty to prohibit and discard under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, shall not manufacture Defendant products, or sell, distribute, import, or export Defendant products, and shall discard finished products and semi-finished products (which are equipped with a completed structure and not yet completed) of Defendant products stored or displayed in a factory, office, store, place of business, warehouse, or warehouse.

B. Determination on the claim based on Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) and (c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

1) Relevant legal principles

A) The form of a product is allowed to be reproduced and produced in principle unless it is protected by a design right or patent right. However, if the form of a product obtains the function of indicating origin and acquires it up to its well-knownness, it is exceptionally entitled to protection under Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. In addition, in order to obtain well-knownness with the function of indicating origin, the form of the product must have a unique design character that strongly appeals to the consumer's sense compared with other similar products. In addition, the form of the product must have a distinctive character to the extent that ordinary consumers can recognize that it is the product of a specific business entity for a long time. Furthermore, the product type is used continuously, monopoly, and exclusive as the product of a specific business entity for a long time, or is made strong publicity and advertisement, and thus, it should also be determined to the extent that it is considerably 30% per annum of the specific product origin to the trader or the general consumers with the characteristic of the product type (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da38137.

B) In light of the legislative intent and the legislative process thereof under Article 2 subparag. 1(c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the term “public recognition within the Republic of Korea” used in the above provision refers to the so-called “level of name,” which is widely known to the general public, in addition to the relevant traders, beyond the “level of name,” known among consumers within the scope of domestic discharge or a certain area (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da49180, Nov. 9, 2017).

2) Whether the form of the Plaintiff’s product constitutes a good mark widely and well-known

A) According to the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 4, 15, 26-84, 98, 100, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 5-7 and the entire arguments, the following facts are recognized.

(1) The sales in Korea from the year 2012 to the year 2015 for the Plaintiff other company Korea are about KRW 20 billion in total, and the Plaintiff other company Korea currently operates 13 shops at the department stores and duty-free shops. The Plaintiff other company Korea spent approximately KRW 2 billion for advertising expenses for the Plaintiff other company Korea’s product promotion from the year 2012 to the year 2015. Through this, there was a considerable amount of publicity for the Plaintiff’s products in Internet news, fashion magazines, etc.

(2) The Plaintiff’s products are also called separately from consumers as “the off-site professional programming (this case’s 1 product), i.e., e., i., e., e., the third product (the third product of this case), i.g., Han-Gak’s Gak’s (as indicated in the third product of this case), i.e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., k., k......

(3) At present, products that imitate the Plaintiff’s products are sold in multiple Internet blosts in the name of “Tast”, “Tast”, etc.

B) However, in full view of the following facts, it is difficult to deem that the form of the Plaintiff’s product claimed by the Plaintiffs alone led to a “level of the place of origin” significantly differentiated from the trader or the general consumers to the point of view that it is the product of a specific source. It is more difficult to deem that most of the relevant traders, other than the relevant traders, have reached the so-called “level of the name” widely known to the general public.

(1) According to the evidence Eul evidence No. 7, from the "JBS Survey" prepared by the GBS Industry Research Institute in the valley 2015, the size of the domestic bail market in the year 2015 is presumed to be approximately KRW 5.7,46.3 billion. The size of the sales revenue of the Plaintiff Tagki accounts for approximately KRW 0.34% of the total market size since its domestic sales from 2012 to 2015.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that in the case of the Plaintiff’s products, the purchase agency should be actively conducted by Japan. However, considering such fact, the sales amount of the Plaintiff other company appears to be relatively small compared to the total market size, and this is more so in light of the fact that the sales amount of the Plaintiff other company’s products is based not only on the Plaintiff’s products but also on the sales amount of all the products of the Plaintiff other company’s company.

(3) The above results searched on the Internet portal site are not searched in the product form of the Plaintiff products, but searched in the Korean language “Tarik,” which is not the registered trademark of this case. Thus, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff products have proved the well-known and well-knownness of the Plaintiff product form, not the registered trademark of this case. In addition, even if a separate name was created on the Plaintiff’s products, it is difficult to view that such a separate name is beyond reflecting the well-known and well-knownness of the Plaintiff’s producers who wear the Plaintiff products, and it is difficult to prove the well-known and well-knownness of the Plaintiff’s product form.

(4) Also, while the form of the Plaintiff’s product has a pattern of parallel arrangement of 3 to 5 eggs of Jinju, it is difficult to view that the form of the product has a unique design feature that could not be seen existing compared with other similar goods (such as Jinju, Jinju, etc.) and that it has a distinctive character to the extent that general consumers can recognize that the product is a product of a particular business entity.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s product form constitutes a well-known and well-known product mark. On a different premise, the Plaintiffs’ assertion seeking prohibition and discarding based on Article 2 subparag. 1(a) and (c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act against Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 cannot be accepted without further review.

C. Determination on the claim under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

1) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 14, 15, and 95 as well as the entire arguments, Plaintiff Taski Korea paid approximately KRW 2 billion as advertising advertising expenses to promote products from 2012 to 2015, Plaintiff Taski used the same amount as the right table as research and development expenses, Plaintiff Taski used the same amount as the right table, Plaintiff Taski concluded a product design contract with Nonparty on December 16, 2009, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

2) However, the aforementioned research and development costs and advertising promotion costs are shown to be the costs for research and development of all products, such as the promotional products and the release on bail, developed by the Plaintiffs, or for advertisement and publicity thereof, and do not seem to be exclusive costs incurred in the form of the Plaintiff’s product claimed by the Plaintiffs among the Plaintiff’s products. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff spent approximately KRW 11.7 million as the design cost of the Plaintiff’s product form, but it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid approximately KRW 11.7 million as the design cost of the Plaintiff’s product form, but it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff’s product as a result of investment or effort to the extent that the form of the Plaintiff’s product claimed as the outcome would be legally

3) Under the different premise above, the plaintiffs' assertion seeking prohibition and abolition based on Article 2 subparagraph 1 (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act against defendants 2 and 4 cannot be accepted without further review.

6. Conclusion

Thus, among the claims that are changed in exchange in this court, the claims against the plaintiffs 2 and 4 are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiffs 1 and 3 and the remaining claims against the plaintiffs 2 and 4 are dismissed as they are without merit.

[Attachment] List 1: omitted

[Attachment] List 2: omitted

Judges Yoon Sung-sung(Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)