2010 High 4466 Trademark Act (Revised name of crime: Unfair Competition Prevention and Business

Violation of the Act on the Protection of Confidentiality

A

【Correction】

December 14, 2010

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The defendant has operated Internet shopping mall from October 2009 to B with the trade name "B".

The Defendant knowingly purchased the bags with the above trademark from October 2009 to April 28, 2010 from Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Market wholesaler with the knowledge that “C” is a trademark widely recognized in the Republic of Korea, which is a Italian brand, which was designed by “C”, for the purpose of selling the bags with the above trademark, and sold it to many and unspecified persons in the above shopping mall operated by the Defendant.

2. Determination:

Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act provides that the act of causing confusion with another person's goods by using any name, trade name, trademark, container or package of goods of another person, or other goods identical or similar to the mark indicating another person's goods, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea, or by selling goods using such goods, shall be one of "unfair competition act". Article 18 (3) 1 of the same Act provides that a person who has engaged in an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won. However, whether a mark indicating another person's goods is widely known in the Republic of Korea shall be determined based on the period of use, method, mode, quantity, quantity of goods, scope of transaction, etc., and whether the actual situation of the goods transaction and the social

However, the evidence presented by the prosecutor in this case alone is insufficient to recognize the above trademark as a trademark widely recognized domestically.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court acquitted the defendant under the latter part of Article 325

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-young