Defendant

Prosecutor

decoration;

Incheon District Court Decision 2010 High Court Decision 4466 Decided December 14, 2010

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts, despite the fact that the Defendant knew that the “Non-Banwawa” was a trademark widely known in the Republic of Korea, and could sufficiently recognize the fact that the bags attached with the above trademark were sold to many and unspecified persons.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged in this case

The Defendant operated the Internet shopping mall from October 2009 to October 28, 2009 with the trade name of “○○○○○○○.” The Defendant knowingly known that Nonindicted Party 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the judgment of the Supreme Court) was a trademark widely recognized in the Republic of Korea, “Non-Party 1,” a Italy fashion brand, the design of which was “Non-Party 1,” and sold it to many and unspecified persons from the above shopping mall operated by the Defendant from October 2009 to April 28, 2010.

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the above trademark not guilty on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the above trademark as a trademark widely recognized in Korea.

C. Judgment of the court below

(1) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act provides that "an act of unfair competition" means an act falling under any of the following items: "an act of causing confusion with another person's goods by using things identical or similar to another person's name, trade name, trademark, containers and packages of goods, and other marks widely known domestically, or by selling, distributing, importing, or exporting goods using such things." This purpose is to prevent unfair competition that causes confusion with the source of goods by preventing confusion with the source of goods by preventing an act of unfair competition that causes confusion with the source of goods by recognizing that the goods are produced and sold by the right holder of the goods or a person in a special relationship with the right holder of the goods or a person in a special relationship with the former, and thus, it is widely known (the condition that a mark indicating a particular person's goods is widely known among the parties, traders, or consumers within a considerable extent) and confusion with the source of goods (the source of goods).

(2) First, we examine whether the non-sea Sweboard’s product mark was widely known in Korea.

The issue of whether a mark indicating another person's goods has been widely known in the Republic of Korea under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act is based on the period of use, method, pattern, quantity of use, scope of transaction, etc., and whether it is objectively widely known under the social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da76861, Sept. 26, 2003). The court below and the court below acknowledged the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. In other words, the following circumstances are as follows: ① Nonindicted Co. 2 imported non-indicted 2's goods and sold them at new global department stores around October 20, 200; ② currently, the famous department stores and duty-free shops located in Seoul, Busan, and Daegu; ② The trademark non-public prosecutor's registration of the non-public-public-public-public-public-private partnership trademark rights is widely recognized as "non-public-public-private partnership 20."

(3) 그러나, 피고인이 판매한 모조품 가방이 ‘비비안 웨스트 우드’의 상품과 혼동가능성이 있는지에 관하여 보건대, 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인은 2009. 10.경부터 자신의 인터넷 쇼핑몰인 ○○ ○○○에 싼 가격의 여러 가지 패션가방들을 올렸는데, 그 중에 이 사건 모조품 가방이 포함된 점, ② 이 사건 모조품 가방의 앞면에 ‘비비안 웨스트 우드’의 상표와 같은 상표가 디자인되어 있기는 하나, ‘비비안 웨스트 우드’ 브랜드명이 표기되어 있지는 않았으며, 가방 이미지의 상단에는 “이번에 야심차게 준비한 신상 비비안웨스트우* 디자인의 숄더백이야”라고 상품 설명이 기재되어 있어, 오히려 이를 본 소비자로 하여금 위 가방이 비비안웨스트우드 디자인을 모방한 모조품임을 알 수 있도록 하고 있는 점, ③ 피고인이 판매한 모조품 가방의 가격(19,000원)은, 당심에서 검찰이 제출한 자료들에 의하여 알 수 있는 실제 비비안웨스트우드 상품의 가격(위 모조품 가방과 유사한 디자인의 가방 가격은 1,560,000원과 1,850,000원 상당이다)과는 그 차이가 상당하여, 소비자로 하여금 위 가방이 비비안웨스트우드 디자인을 모방한 모조품임을 쉽게 짐작하게 하는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 소비자로 하여금 피고인이 판매하는 모조품 가방을 ‘비비안 웨스트 우드’의 상품이라거나 ‘비비안 웨스트 우드’와 특수 관계에 있는 사람이 생산·판매하는 것으로 혼동을 일으키게 하였다고 보기 어렵다.

(3) If so, the lower court’s conclusion that acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it has no reason to appeal.

Judges Lee Sung-won (Presiding Judge)