logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.05.10 2013고정490
상표법위반
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant

A above.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is employed as the representative of “stock company B” engaged in the wholesale and retail business, such as clothes and miscellaneous goods, located at 510f, of the Incheon Bupyeong D Building C, and is in charge of the import, sale, and business of goods.

From June 14, 2012 to June 18, 2012, from July 6, 2012 to July 10, 2012, the Defendant infringed on the trademark rights of the trademark holder by selling the network set on which the trademark identical to “BASINBG” registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office under Article 40-082785, on May 10, 2010.

2. The Defendant, B, at the time and place of the preceding paragraph, violated the trademark right as above by A, an employee of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the first trial record

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of statutes on trademark registration certificates;

1. Article 93 of the Trademark Act; Article 97 subparagraph 1 of the Trademark Act; Article 97 subparagraph 1 of the same Act; Article 93 of the same Act

1. Defendant G at a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserts that although the defendant sold bags as stated in the facts charged, he/she had no intention to infringe the trademark right.

According to the above evidence, the defendant's goods sold by him had the trade name, address, and telephone number of the man-made bank, and the defendant can be found to have the fact that the goods were delivered after deducting the above product description at the time of delivery, and the defendant had the intention to infringe the trademark right in an incomplete manner. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

arrow