H-Swed (Law Firm Boba, Attorneys Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other U.S. Sports Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Bobna, Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Kata Golf Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Multilater, Attorney Ha Sang-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 9, 2011

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Kahap104071 Decided October 29, 2010

1. The defendant shall not sell the golf products and golf products with the marks listed in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the attached list (the golf products, golf holes, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles), or use the above marks on the packaging of the golf products and golf products (the golf products, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, and golf-styles), or use them for the advertisement and publicity of the golf products and golf products (the golf products, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, golf-styles, and its-styles).

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims, the plaintiff's claims added in the trial, and the plaintiff's appeal are dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of the litigation, 60% of the costs incurred by the participation shall be borne by the Intervenor, and 40% of the costs by the Defendant, respectively, by the Plaintiff, and 60% of the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. The defendant shall not sell golf products and golf products with the marks listed in the separate sheet (golization, golf pipe, golf-style, golf-style, golf-style, golf-styler, golf-styler, golf-styler, golf-styler, and golf-style) or attach the above marks to the packaging of golf products and golf products (golization, golf-style, golf-styler, golf-styler, golf-styler, golf-styler, golf-styler), or use the above marks for the advertisement and publicity of golf products and golf products (golization, golf-style, golf-style, golf-styler, golf-styler, golf-styler, and golf-style).

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) carry out the procedure for registration of cancellation on the part “” or “the procedure for registration of cancellation on the part “,” among the Kata golf Co., Ltd., which is kept and managed by the commercial registry office of the Seoul Central District Court;

B. On April 22, 2002, the procedure for cancellation of the domain name "(domain address 1 omitted)" (hereinafter "the domain name of this case") registered with the Korea Internet & Security Agency on April 22, 2002 shall be implemented.

(1) The plaintiff amended the claim(s) of the claim(s) as stated above and added the claim(s)(s)(s)(s)(2)(b).

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall not use the trademark on golf products, such as golf bonds, or on the packaging thereof, or use it for the advertisement and publicity of golf products, such as golf bonds, and the plaintiff shall implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration with respect to the part "" or "" in a cara or golf of the Seoul Central District Court (registration number omitted) which is kept and managed by the commercial registry office of the Seoul Central District Court and in the corporate register (registration number omitted).

1. Basic facts

【Unsatisfy-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-s

A. Plaintiff’s trademark application and registration

On September 22, 1997, the Plaintiff is a corporation located in Singapore that produces, imports, and sells golf bonds and golf products (hereinafter “instant registered trademark”). On the designated goods of Chapter 43, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the trademark with the said trademarks “gymnaps, golf clubs, golf clubs, golf-gymnas, golf-gymnas, golf-gymnas, golf-gymnas, golf-gymnas, golf-gymnas, golf-ymnas, golf-ymnas, sports-ymnas, sports-symnas, golf clubs,” and completed registration with respect to the trademark of this case from around November 17, 1998 (registration No. 1 omitted) as the trademark registration number of this case from around 27, 197 to the trademark of this case, and registered the trademark of this case as the trademark of this case as the trademark registration number of Singapore in addition to the trademark registration number of this case.

(b) Registration and acquisition of trademark rights of e-mail showers, stock companies;

The purpose of Japan is to sell, import, export, and manufacture golf products, etc., which is a Japanese company established by Nonparty 2, a Japanese corporation, on September 12, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the aforementioned purpose was changed on October 16, 200).

일본의 야마하 주식회사(ヤマハ 주식회사)는 1987. 12. 29. 일본에서 ‘ ’ 상표(이하 ‘일본 카타나 상표’라 한다)에 관하여 지정상품을 ‘인형, 오락용구, 운동기구(펜싱용구, 검도용구 제외), 악기, 연주보조품, 축음기, 레코드’ 등으로 하여 상표등록을 출원하여 1995. 8. 31. 등록을 마쳤고, 우메다쇼카이는 2000. 7. 31. 일본 카타나 상표에 관하여 지정상품을 골프용구로 하는 상표권 분할이전신청을 하여 2000. 8. 18. 자기 앞으로 분할이전등록을 마쳤다.

In addition, the following trademark rights are applied for and registered in Japan:

A person shall be appointed.

On the other hand, on February 6, 2001, e-mail shock car applied for trademark registration with respect to the trademark "" with the golfization, etc. of Chapter 25, golf products of Chapter 28, golf bags, golf balls, golf course locks, and glargs, and completed the registration on March 4, 2003 (registration number 18 omitted).

C. Establishment of Carta golf Co., Ltd. in Japan

우메다쇼카이를 설립한 소외 2는 1998. 6. 16. 목적이 골프클럽 및 골프용품의 제조, 기획 판매 등이고, 본점 소재지가 일본 동경인 주식회사 골프디자인(주식회사 ゴルフデザイン)을 설립하였고, 위 회사는 2000. 3. 15. 상호를 주식회사 카타나골프(주식회사 カタナゴルフ)로 변경하였다(이하 위 회사를 ‘일본 카타나사’라 한다).

D. Conclusion and termination of a golf bond sales contract between the Plaintiff and Mamerca, and Japanese carta company

In around 198, the Plaintiff entered into a golf-based export and sales contract (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s existing sales contract”) with the Plaintiff to sell the emerasia and the golf-based products produced by Japanese cara company (hereinafter “the instant golf-based products”) in an area other than Japan. Accordingly, the Plaintiff imported and sold the Japanese cara or golf-based products in Korea from around that time, but the Plaintiff’s existing sales contract was completely terminated from around 2002 to 2003.

E. The Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s marks such as the import and sale of foreign cara or golf loans and the KAONA

On May 31, 200, the defendant was established for the purpose of manufacturing the overall golf products and exporting business, etc., and then imported and sold the golf products in Korea from the time of its establishment. The defendant used each of the following marks in relation to the Japanese cara or golf loans that he imports and sells. Japan cara also uses in relation to the Japanese cara or golf loans that he produces and sells:

A person shall be appointed.

On May 24, 2004, the Defendant acquired the trademark right of “,” which is “Ilian Trade Co., Ltd. (trademark registration No. 3 omitted),” and designated goods No. 28, “S. Plasts (P. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s.

On the other hand, the domain name of this case was registered under the name of the non-party 1, who is the director of the defendant company, on April 22, 2002. At present, the domain name of this case is connected to the domain name of "(domain address 2 omitted)" and it is automatically connected to the Internet site "(domain address 2 omitted) where the domain name of this case was entered into the webbrogy, golf products and golf products." At the center of the above site, the marks No. 7 and No. 8 are marked on the upper part of the above site, and the defendant mark No. 4 are marked on the upper part of the left part of the above site, and the defendant mark No. 7 and No. 8 are attached to Japan, the golf products and golf bags, etc. sold on the above site, and the above site is operated in the name of the non-party 4 in the office like the defendant.

F. The defendant's appeal for revocation of registration due to non-use of the registered trademark of this case

On March 21, 2006, the defendant requested the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2006Da517) to revoke trademark registration due to non-use of the registered trademark of this case. However, on August 30, 2007, the defendant was dismissed from the trial decision and the decision became final and conclusive on October 6, 2007.

On February 20, 2009, the Defendant filed a petition for adjudication on invalidation of trademark registration with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2009Da307, and for adjudication on revocation of trademark registration due to non-use as prescribed by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2009Da308 of the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board. However, each of the claims was dismissed. While the Defendant filed a lawsuit on revocation of trademark registration with the Patent Court (No. 2009No7321), the Defendant’s claim was dismissed on March 25, 2010, and the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court (No. 2010Hu1213), the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed on September 9, 2010.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s use of each mark indicated in the separate sheet identical or similar to the registered trademark of this case on the Japanese Carta golf loan that he imports and sells, and that the trademark of this case and the essential part of the trademark of this case are identical to the Defendant’s trade name. Since September 2010, the Plaintiff infringed the Plaintiff’s right to the registered trademark of this case by linking the domain name of this case identical to the registered trademark of this case to the Defendant’s Internet shopping mall website (domain address 2 omitted) and using the domain name of this case as linked to the Defendant’s Internet shopping mall site (domain address 2 omitted). The Plaintiff asserts that each mark indicated in the separate sheet against the

3. Appropriateness of the claim as to the mark indicated in attached list No. 1 (Defendant No. 2 mark);

The instant registered trademark is a combination trademark consisting of the letters “KGro (hereinafter “KGro”)” and the bottom thereof, and the Defendant mark 2 simply moves to the right side of the instant registered trademark into KG and is merely a modification to the extent that it does not impair the identity of the instant registered trademark as an identification mark in light of the transaction norms. Thus, it is recognized that Defendant mark 2 is identical to the instant registered trademark.

However, as seen from April 2002, the facts that the defendant did not use the defendant mark 2 from the fact that it was not possible for the defendant to use the defendant mark 2 in light of the overall circumstances in the basic facts, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

Therefore, under the premise that the defendant uses or is likely to use the defendant mark 2 so far, the plaintiff's claim on the defendant mark 2 is without merit without examining further claims.

4. Appropriateness of the claims as to each mark listed in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the attached list (Defendant Nos. 4 and 5);

A. Whether the trademark right of this case was infringed

In principle, the similarity of a combined trademark consisting of two or more letters or diagrams shall be determined by the appearance, name, and concept arising from the entire constituent part of the trademark. However, in a case where it is deemed that the trademark can be placed on the sole basis of an essential part, that is, a combination of letters, etc., “the component capable of distinguishing one’s own goods from other goods” pursuant to the combination of letters, etc., the similarity of the trademark may be determined by separating or extracting the essential part and by the title or concept arising from that part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Hu1871, Oct. 15, 2004; 2008Hu101, Nov. 27, 2008).

Of the components of the instant registered trademark, the design that is made by excessively overlaps with K and G, the front author of the “KSNA GOLF”, which is a letter part of the trademark of this case, is not sufficient to see the degree of the design to the extent that the degree of the design in question can suppress the character character of the general public, or to see the name and concept thereof, and the part of the letter “GOLF” among the parts of the trademark of this case is an undistinctive nature in relation to the designated goods. As such, the instant registered trademark of this case can be called and conceptualized as the “KATSNAGLF” or as the “KATSNA” in accordance with the letter part, and thus, the letter “KATSNA” is the essential part of the instant registered trademark of this case.

Defendant 4 and 5 marks are a combination mark consisting of the word “KTNAGLF” or “KATNA” on the right and right side thereof, and the word “KATNA” is not deemed to be able to express any concept or name in the form. Even if the figure and the composition are combined, a special name or concept may not be created even if the figure and the composition are combined. Of the text, the word “GOLF” in the word and the word and the word and the word and the word and the word are non-distinctiveness in relation to the designated goods. As they constitute a non-distinctive character, Defendant 4 and 5 marks are named and conceptualized as “KTNAGLF” or “KANA” in accordance with their character and thus, Defendant 4 and 5 marks and the essential part of Defendant 5 are also the word “KTNA”.

As seen above, the registered trademark of this case and the marks Nos. 4 and 5 are identical to the name and concept in the essential part of the trademark (as seen above, even if emerca is used in the Republic of Korea on February 6, 2001 with respect to the marks “”, the trademark of this case and the marks Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be viewed differently inasmuch as the marks combine with the marks “” and the words “KSNAGLF” or “KSNA” with the words “Korea”,” regardless of whether only “the mark can be used separately,” and the above evidence and the purport of each of the statements and arguments Nos. 12 and 13 as well as the whole, are likely to mislead or confuse consumers with respect to the origin of goods if the marks No. 4 and Defendant No. 5 are used together with the same or similar goods. Thus, Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are similar to the registered trademark of this case.

On the other hand, the designated goods of the instant registered trademark are golf loans, golf loans, golf loans hedging, golf loans, etc. The Defendant mark was used in the car slopings, advertisements, and Defendant stores, such as Japanese cara, golf loans, etc. that the Defendant imported and sold, and the Defendant mark was also used in the instant registered trademark in Japanese cara or golf loans that the Defendant imported and sold, and as such, the goods using the Defendant mark 4 and 5 designated goods of the instant registered trademark are identical or similar to the goods using the Defendant mark.

Therefore, Defendant’s use of Defendant 4 and 5 marks, which are similar trademarks of the instant registered trademark, for Japanese cara or golf loans, which are goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the instant registered trademark, constitutes infringement of the instant registered trademark right (where it is closely, golfization among the prohibited goods using the trademark referred to in paragraph (1) of the instant claim does not constitute designated goods of the instant registered trademark right, but is included in the purport of the claim, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff completed the registration of golfization of the trademarks identical to the instant registered trademark as designated goods after the registration of the instant registered trademark, and the Plaintiff asserted and proved such fact, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the right to use the instant registered trademark in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion on the right to use the instant registered trademark includes the assertion on the trademark

B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion

(1) Whether the validity of the instant registered trademark is restricted due to the acquisition of well-known marks of Defendant 2, 3, and 5

The defendant obtained well-known marks of the defendant 2, 3, and 5, and accordingly, the trademark "" (registration number 5 omitted) and "" (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's post-registered trademark" referring to registration number 6 omitted; hereinafter the above trademark) which the plaintiff filed for and registered after the use of each of the above marks becomes final and conclusive as nullification of registration in each appeal for invalidation of registration filed by the defendant. In light of these circumstances, the plaintiff asserted that the trademark of this case similar to the defendant 2 mark cannot be claimed against the defendant 4 and 5 on the basis of the trademark of this case.

However, the plaintiff's subsequent registered trademark is invalidated in accordance with Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act on the ground that the prior-use trademarks, Defendant 2, 3, 5 marks, and goods, which are prior-use trademarks recognized as prior-use trademarks to domestic consumers or traders at the time of the decision of registration, may cause misconception or confusion about the source of goods and cause general consumers to mislead or confuse consumers as to the same or similar goods, and such circumstance does not affect the validity of the trademark right of this case, which is prior-use trademarks than Defendant 2, 3, and 5. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit (whether the subsequent registered trademarks by the plaintiff become invalidated due to the possibility of misconception or confusion with Defendant 2, 3, and 5 marks, which are prior use trademarks, and whether the use of Defendant 4, and 5 marks is prohibited by the effects of the prior registered trademarks is a separate issue).

Doz. Whether he/she has used his/her trade name in a common way

The defendant asserts that since the mark Nos. 4 and 5 is merely a trademark indicating the defendant's trade name or the well-known abbreviation of the defendant's trade name in a common way, it does not affect the trademark right in this case.

According to Article 51 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act, a trademark indicating its trade name or the well-known abbreviation thereof in a common way is not effective unless it is used for the purpose of unfair competition after the establishment of the trademark right is registered. Here, the indication of trade name in a common way means the indication without any special distinctive character by displaying the trade name in a special form, such as a unique letter, color, or design letter, and on the premise that ordinary consumers can recognize the trade name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5358, Oct. 14, 2005), and (1) the defendant's trade name is "kyna golf" and thus, if it is indicated in a common way after it is registered for the establishment of the trademark right, it means the indication of the trade name in a common way, and thus, it constitutes "UTK or the well-known trademark" or "UTK" of the defendant's trade name in a common way, and thus, it constitutes "UTTK or the above part of the defendant's trademark "I" or the above."

• Whether the exercise of trademark right in this case constitutes abuse of right

The defendant imported and sold the golf loans from around 200 to Japan, using the defendant's mark to advertise, publicize and conduct business activities in Japan, and as a result, the defendant's mark acquired well-knownness. The plaintiff did not use the registered trademark of this case and then imported and sold the golf bonds with the trademark of this case since around that time in order to acquire well-knownness of the defendant's mark, and then imported and sold in advance the golf bonds with the registered trademark of this case as if they were Japanese cara or golf loans, thereby damaging the business reputation of the defendant and causing confusion to consumers. Thus, the plaintiff's exercise of the registered trademark of this case constitutes an unfair competition act under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "Unfair Competition Prevention Act") and is in violation of good faith or social order, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the prohibition of use of the defendant's mark 4 and 5 based on the right to use the registered trademark of this case constitutes abuse of rights and thus it cannot be permitted.

In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s 2-year golf trademarks were used by the Plaintiff’s 1-2-year-end company (“Plaintiff”) and the Plaintiff’s 2-year-end company (“Plaintiff”)’s 10-year-old golf trademarks were used for the Plaintiff’s 8-year-old golf trademarks, and (b) the Plaintiff’s 2-year-old golf trademarks were no longer used for the Plaintiff’s 8-year-old golf trademarks, and (c) the Plaintiff’s 2-year-old golf trademarks were no longer used for the Plaintiff’s 9-year-old golf trademarks, and the Plaintiff’s 2-year-old golf trademarks were no longer used for the Plaintiff’s 2-year-old golf trademarks, and the Plaintiff’s 2-year-old golf trademarks were no longer used for the Plaintiff’s new trademarks that were used for the Plaintiff’s 5-year-old golf trademarks, and there were no concerns for the Defendant to view the Plaintiff’s 2-year-old golf trademarks to be used for its products.

However, as seen in the basic facts, the Plaintiff did not use the trademark of this case in Korea prior to the acquisition of the trademark of this case or Japan, and applied for the registration of this case on September 22, 1997, prior to the establishment of the Japanese carta company, and completed the registration of this case on November 17, 1998. Since then, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the trademark of this case in Korea, including China and Thailand, and the Plaintiff did not sell golf products attached with the trademark of this case in Korea for more than 10 years after the termination of the Plaintiff's existing sales contract, but the Plaintiff manufactured golf products attached with the trademark of this case from around 2004 to the manufacturing method of the order-based trademark of this case and sold them in Korea. The Defendant applied for the registration of the trademark of this case from around 2006 and around 209 to the extent that it did not have an intention to use the trademark of this case as the trademark of this case, the Plaintiff did not use the trademark of this case as the trademark of this case in Korea.

The defendant alleged that the registered trademark of this case was made on the side of Mamerca for the plaintiff's existing sales contract, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and even if Mamerca made the registered trademark of this case on the side of Mamerca as alleged by the defendant, as long as the plaintiff completed trademark registration in his future, it cannot be viewed as different as above.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents presented by the defendant as the ground for the above argument are inappropriate as they are, since they differ from the case of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the prohibition claim against the defendant based on the plaintiff's right to registered trademark of this case constitutes abuse of rights is without merit ( even though even though the above manufacturing cost labeling by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's assistant makes domestic consumers mistake or confuse the source of golf loans attached with the trademark of this case or the trademark of Lone Star Sea as Japanese cara, such circumstance alone alone does not make it difficult to regard the above manufacturing cost labelling as falling under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (d) and (e) (f) (f) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and even if the above manufacturing cost labelling constitutes unfair competition under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or unfair display and advertisement of the definition of "Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising", it cannot be deemed that the registered trademark of this case is invalidated or invalidated due to such manufacturing cost labelling, regardless of the fact that the above manufacturing cost labelling constitutes an unfair competition under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or the acts of unfair display and advertisement of the definition of "the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising".

· Application of the principle of permission for parallel import

The defendant asserts that the defendant mark Nos. 4 and 5 attached to the Japanese Carta golf is attached to Japan, and the defendant is using the defendant mark Nos. 4 and 5 in the advertisement while importing and selling it, and since it is similar to the concurrent importation, the defendant's use of the defendant mark Nos. 4 and 5 should be allowed.

In order that an act of importing goods identical or similar to the designated goods, which are identical or similar to the trademark registered in the Republic of Korea, does not constitute an infringement of the registered trademark right, the trademark should have been attached to the imported goods by the foreign trademark right holder or legitimate use right holder. The trademark attached to the imported goods should be deemed as indicating the same source as the registered trademark in the Republic of Korea due to the legal or economic relationship between the foreign trademark right holder and the Korean trademark right holder or any other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da40423, Oct. 13, 2006; 2002Da61965, Jun. 9, 2005, etc.). In this case, the trademark of this case is closely related to the legal or economic relationship between the Plaintiff and the Japanese trademark right holder and the Japanese trademark right holder or the Japanese trademark right holder, and thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be seen as the same source as the trademark of this case.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, insofar as the defendant's use of defendant 4 and 5 mark infringes on the right to registered trademark of this case, the plaintiff's claim seeking the prohibition is justified.

5. Appropriateness of the claim as to the mark indicated in attached list No. 4;

The plaintiff, on the premise that the defendant used the mark indicated in the attached list No. 4, the defendant sought a prohibition against its use, but the mark used or used by the defendant is identical to the basic facts, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant used the mark indicated in the attached list No. 4 separately from the defendant No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for prohibition against the mark listed in the attached list No.

6. Appropriateness of the defendant's claim for cancellation of part of the defendant's trade name

If the trademark right of this case is not effective in the defendant's trade name, the defendant should use his trade name as a trademark, i.e., the defendant's trademark, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant used his trade name in addition to the defendant's mark in the basic facts. In addition, under Article 51 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act, with respect to a trademark indicating his trade name or trade name in a common way after the establishment of the trademark right is registered, the trademark right is not effective unless it is used for the purpose of unfair competition, unless it is used for the purpose of unfair competition after the establishment of the trademark right is registered. Even if the defendant uses his trade name in his trade name, even if the defendant uses it, it can not be viewed that the defendant used the trademark of this case from 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 30 years to 14, 47 through 55, 67 through 74 through 78 of the evidence No. 29-29.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation registration of the part of "Kata" among the defendant's trade name due to the infringement of the trademark right of this case is without merit.

7. Appropriateness of the request for cancellation of the domain name of this case

The claim for the cancellation of the domain name of this case must be filed against the registered user. As seen in the basic facts, since the registered user of the domain name of this case is not the defendant but the non-party 1, the claim for the cancellation of the domain name of this case against the defendant is without merit without examining further.

As to this, Nonparty 1 is merely a registered user of the domain name of this case, and the defendant asserts that he is the registered user of the domain name of this case. However, as alleged by the plaintiff, Nonparty 1 cannot be viewed differently even if he is the registered user of the domain name of this case.

8. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiff's claims, the prohibition claim as to each mark listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3 shall be accepted and the remaining claims shall be dismissed. Since the part of the defendant's claim for the cancellation of registration as to part of the defendant's trade name in the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the part concerning each mark listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3 among the prohibition claims as to each mark listed in the separate sheet that has been changed in exchange in the trial, the part concerning each mark mentioned in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3 shall be cited and the remaining claims shall be dismissed ("KTNA" or "Katata" or "the main claim for the prohibition order as to the trademark is withdrawn from the exchange change in the trial and becomes null and void in the judgment of the court of first instance). It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Defendant Mark]

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Judge)