beta
Text
1. Defendant D may not use the mark “E” on the “E” website.
2. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff’s trademark (service mark) right registered transfer of each of the following trademarks (service mark) (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s service mark”) from SKCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) as a company engaged in the transaction of vehicles online or directly operated by SKKC, and completed the registration of transfer thereof:
According to Gap evidence Nos. 29 and 30, although the plaintiff's registration of exclusive license for the plaintiff's service mark was completed on June 25, 2014 by using designated service business as a used vehicle sales brokerage business (limited to a off-line motor vehicle business), it is not problematic whether exclusive license is established in this case concerning the online used vehicle sales brokerage business.
The filing date/registration date/registration number of designated goods or designated service business / On June 24, 201, 101, / On October 6, 2011, the sale and brokerage business of used goods, used vehicle wholesale and retail business, automobile wholesale and retail business, etc. (No. 35) of used goods, June 24, 201, / No. 0037083, Nov. 22, 2011
B. The Defendants, as indicated below, are engaged in the business of trading used cars using each of the marks on the Internet site (hereinafter referred to as “each of the marks of this case,” and individually, according to each of the marks of this case, the Defendants are engaged in the business of trading used cars.
From July 24, 2014 to September 11, 2016, Defendant A entered the Gun as of December 2, 2014, and was discharged on September 1, 2016, as the infringement mode No. 1 A, Defendant A’s mark infringement type 1 A, and Defendant A asserted that, as of November 2, 2014, Defendant A’s relation to the Internet site in charge of the said Defendant’s mixed-child affairs, if the Internet site’s visitors were rapidly reduced until September 2016, part of the infringement period was denied. However, the above Defendant’s military service period was not closed, and the mark No. 1 of this case was used during the said period.