The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion that the Defendant had no intention to commit a violation of the Trademark Act, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant intentionally sold to unspecified customers by attaching the trademark similar to the above registered trademark to the bet lease, which is the goods similar to the designated goods of the instant registered trademark, from April 27, 2005 to April 19, 2012.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the trade name was indicated in a common way, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not constitute a case where the Defendant expressed the trade name in a common way on the grounds that the mark used by the Defendant was composed of diverse figures, pictures, and letters centering on the English body “C” inside the rectangular type, and that the trademark name is composed of “C” and “C” that combines the name of the trademark with the “household” that is a common name of the goods used, thereby being distinctively composed of the “household” that is a common name of the goods used.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the extent that the trademark right is not effective under Article 51(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016) or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.