2014Kahap80285 provisional disposition such as screening

Ison Education Co., Ltd.

Representative Director Kim Jong-soo

Law Firm LLC, Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

1. Eco films of the stock company;

Effect of transfer of representative director;

2. C&M stock company;

The representative director of the board of directors and the Kim Sung-soo

Law Firm Sejong, Attorney Yoon Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

April 22, 2014

All of the instant applications are dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the obligee.

【Main of the Main Claim】

1. The debtors shall screen the film shown in Attachment 1, or shall have a dives ID and Internet video work related thereto;

The production, reproduction, sale, distribution, overseas export, advertisement, or display of IPTV video works.

2. The debtor shall be a DNA who has already produced, kept or distributed in connection with the above motion picture;

All other video works shall be ordered to be collected and stored in the execution officer entrusted by the creditor.

3. If the obligor fails to perform the above obligations, the date on which each obligee violates the obligation.

50,000,00 won per day in number shall be paid.

【Preliminary Claim】

1. The debtors shall not delete the same part as the attached Form 2 with respect to the motion pictures listed in the attached Form 1;

under the state that motion pictures are shown or are shown in DNA, Internet video works, and IPTV video works;

No production, reproduction, sale, distribution, overseas export, advertisement, or exhibition shall be conducted.

2. The debtor shall be a DNA who has already produced, kept or distributed in connection with the above motion picture;

All other video works shall be ordered to be collected and stored in the execution officer entrusted by the creditor.

3. If the obligor fails to perform the above obligations, the date on which each obligee violates the obligation.

50,000,00 won per day in number shall be paid.

1. Summary of grounds for application;

Creditors are co-owners of the right to registered service marks (registration number: No. 3694) and : No. 80353) with respect to the mark "(registration number: No. 3694: No. 803)" (hereinafter referred to as "registered service mark of this case"). In addition, creditors are running Internet education business, private teaching institute operation and private teaching institute-related business, private teaching institute franchise business, etc. using the above marks.

However, the film shown in attached Table 1 (hereinafter "the film of this case") jointly produced by the debtor, which is distributed by the debtor C&M corporation, is a minor sexual traffic business lawsuit that confiness the female released by the creditor and engages in sexual traffic as shown in attached Table 2, and the president of the Cheongdo Private Teaching Institute is expressed as the president operating a minor sexual traffic business.

Therefore, as the obligor’s act of screening the motion picture of this case damages the obligee’s image of the registered service mark of this case and damages the obligee’s reputation, the obligor’s provisional disposition such as prohibition of screening the motion picture of this case is sought as indicated in the purport of the application.

2. Determination

A. The holder of the applied service mark right has the right to request prohibition or prevention of infringement against a person who infringes or is likely to infringe the right to use the registered service mark exclusively for the designated service business (Articles 2(3) and 50 of the Trademark Act) and the right to request the person who infringes or might infringe on the right to use the registered service mark (Articles 2(3) and 65(1) of the Trademark Act).

The use of a service mark should be premised on the use of the service mark in order to recognize the infringement of the right to use the service mark, and the term "use of a trademark" under the Trademark Act refers to an act under each item of Article 2 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act. In order for a trademark to fall under the use of a mark, it must be functioned as a distinctive mark distinguishing the goods related to one's own business from those related to another's business from the goods to the consumers under social norms. Such a legal principle applies likewise to service marks under Article 2 (3) of the Trademark Act (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da12, October 12, 2007).

31174 see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 31174).

According to the records, the registered service business of the registered service mark of this case is proved to be "No. 35". The registered service business of the registered service mark of this case is "No. 35". The registered service business of this case is "No. 41". The registered service business of this case is proved to be similar to the registered service business of the registered service mark of this case. The debtor is not recognized to be similar to the registered service business of the registered service mark of this case, and the debtor is not using the registered service mark of this case as the distinguishing mark of his service business.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the film of this case has infringed or is likely to infringe the creditor's service mark right due to the showing of the film of this case, and the above assertion by the creditor is rejected on a different premise.

B. The honorary right based on the right of honor is a very important legal interest with respect to a person’s life and body, and the right of honor as a personal right is a right of sacrifism as well as a real right. Thus, a person who illegally infringes upon an objective evaluation of a person’s moral value, such as a person’s character, morals, reputation, credit, etc., received from society, shall be liable for damages (Article 751 of the Civil Act) or a disposition to restore honor (Article 764

In addition to the one entitled to seek action, a person may seek prohibition of infringement to exclude or prevent infringement that is currently being committed against the perpetrator based on his/her right of honor (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da60950, Mar. 28, 2013, etc.).

According to the records, the film of this case includes the site of the private teaching institute building (the second floor of the 4th floor building) under the name of "Cheongdomin Institute" (the second floor of the 4th floor building) expressed as a minor's sexual traffic business establishment operated by juveniles who have sexually assaulted and murdered his/her father, and the site of the scambly named as a disguised sexual traffic business establishment. Therefore, the film of this case is likely to cause a negative increase in the name of "Cheongdomin Institute". Thus, the film of this case is likely to cause considerable damage to the creditor's reputation appraisal of the person operating the Cheongdomin Institute by using the name of "Cheongdomin Institute" due to the screening of the film of this case.

However, in order to determine that the reputation of a specific person was damaged by the materials appearing in a film, which is a creative production, it is insufficient to simply say that the subjective reputation of a specific person has been damaged. From an objective point of view, it should be recognized that there is a considerable relation to the people who see the film to recognize that the figures, etc. appearing in the film refer to the real figures, etc., and that the social evaluation of a specific person would be diminished as a result. Meanwhile, the above two legal interests should be compared and balanced so as to prevent the protection of honor as a personality right from unfairly restricting the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution and the freedom of arts.

In full view of the following circumstances explained by the record on this case, even if it is the same as the name of a private teaching institute operated by the creditor who actually existed the name of "Cheongwon Institute" appearing in the film of this case, such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead the general public viewing of the building appearing in the film of this case as the "Cheongwon Institute" operated by the creditor. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the objective social evaluation of the creditor operating the private teaching institute in the name of "Cheongwon Institute" due to the screening of the film of this case does not decline. Accordingly, the motion of this case is insufficient to vindicate the right to preserve the film of this case. Accordingly, the motion of this case is not a small knife that it is the original work, but a small knife that is the original work, and it is not the knife that it is the knife that it is the knife of the motion picture of this case.

2) The film of this case contains an ambassador, who is not a private teaching institute, but a building acquired in lieu of gambling. Thus, the film of this case may sufficiently connotate the fact that the film of this case is a building which has not been operated as a private teaching institute even if the building was operated as a previous private teaching institute, regardless of the fact that the above building was operated as a private teaching institute (in addition, the film of this case cannot be presented as the president of the Cheongdo Private Teaching Institute unless it is operated as a private teaching institute).

3) On the other hand, the creditor is operating the Gangwon-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do, in the Seoul metropolitan area. On the other hand, there is a building appearing in the film of this case, and in light of its facilities and scale, there is no possibility that the creditor might be mistaken for a private teaching institute operated by the creditor.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the application of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-chul et al.

CCo-acquisitions

Judges et al.