(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.10 2016고정695

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.10 2016고정695

상표법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person engaged in the e-commerce business, such as Anacle 101, Gangnam-gu Seoul and 1st floor in the name of "D".

On August 13, 2014, the Defendant, at the above store, sold to E in electronic commerce one mark similar to that of CHIMHHHE HEHTRTS, registration number No. 0506415) of the Plaintiff’s trademark right holder at KRW 780,00 and infringed on the trademark right holder’s trademark right by selling to E in electronic commerce one mark attached with a trademark similar to that of CHCRE HESHTRTSS, registration number No. 0506415.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Protocols of examination of witnesses other than the date for witness E;

1. On-site photographs;

1. A written request for appraisal, a written appraisal, etc.;

1. Information materials;

1. (1) The Defendant is a person who operates online and off-line stores and sells products, such as internal accounting, etc. (2) A well-known and fixed goods of this case are high-priced imported products; and if a person with knowledge about the safety of the safety of this case is a person with knowledge about the safety of the safety, it is difficult to say that the safety of this case was forged differently from the quality of a DNA or pattern.

The Defendant appears to have been entrusted with the safety of the instant case, and (3) the Defendant sold the instant case upon entrustment.

However, in full view of all the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, such as the defendant's attitude, when the victim raised an issue as to the safety of goods, the defendant knew that the safety of this case was attached with a forged trademark, or at least dolusis, considering the following: (a) the invoice presented by the defendant did not receive accurate invoice from the consignee (the invoice refers to the true document stamp, the content of the invoice is doubtful; (b) the manufacturer, the official importer, etc. was not confirmed; (c) the victim sold the goods as refined; and (d) when the victim raised an issue as to the safety of goods, the defendant knew that the forged trademark of this case was attached, or at least did it.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.12.02 2016고단5366

-부산지방법원 2015.01.22 2014고단8337

-인천지방법원 2018.03.23 2018고단326

-부산지방법원 2016.07.21 2016고단2757

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.09 2016고단9335