beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Plaintiff
From April 3, 1996, C, the representative director, carried on the business of manufacturing lighting devices in the trade name of "A", and on June 12, 2014, C, the representative director, succeeded to the human and physical assets of the above A, thereby establishing the Plaintiff Company, which is the purpose of manufacturing and selling lighting devices.
The defendant joined A on November 1, 2005 and worked as the vice president. On June 12, 2014, the defendant was employed as the vice president of the plaintiff company even after the incorporation of the plaintiff company. On October 14, 2014, the defendant established D Co., Ltd. and was appointed as the representative director of the company. On October 16, 2014, the defendant submitted a resignation letter to the plaintiff company and retired.
Meanwhile, the Defendant filed an application for the trademark indicated in the attached list E (hereinafter “instant trademark”) and completed F registration, and the Defendant used the instant trademark for lighting fixtures and equipment business from October 14, 2014 to the date of its establishment.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments of the plaintiff's assertion / The trademark of this case was designed through consultation with C, the president of A, the defendant, the factory head, G, etc. around August 2005, and was attached to the goods produced and sold by A and the plaintiff company since around that time. Thus, the trademark of this case constitutes a well-known trademark widely known domestically as a distinctive mark for the plaintiff's products.
The defendant registered the trademark of this case with the intention to directly use the trademark of this case without registering the trademark of this case for the purpose of excluding Gap's trademark registration by precluding the registration of the trademark of this case. In violation of Article 3 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter "former Trademark Act"), the trademark of this case is registered without the intention to use the trademark and at the same time the quality of goods of Article 7 (1) 11 of the former Trademark Act.