logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.02.10 2014고정1681
상표법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around January 10, 2014, the Defendant imported 30 foot hives hives (FA-305: 20, FA-306: 10) from the D office in Seongbuk-gu Seoul to the Defendant’s operation. On November 10, 2008, the victim E registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (F) on November 10, 2008, and the victim registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on February 28, 201, 30 (FA-305: 20, FA-306: 10) from the date of the importation to March 31, 2014, the Defendant sold hives hives hives hives hives hives 19 (F-305: 6, F-306, 706: 706, 76: 76: hives of the victim).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each trademark registration certificate;

1. Notice on each Internet sales;

1. A certificate of the H head office;

1. Application of the statutes governing trademark registration information;

1. Article 93 of the relevant Act concerning criminal facts and Article 93 of the Trademark Act regarding the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant alleged that the pertinent FA-305, FA-306 Edialton license is not a forged product. However, in light of the fact that the above FA-305, FA-306 Edialton license (No. DEN-06, DEN-0575, DEN-13572), which verified the illegal product with respect to the FA-305, FA-306 Ediveton license (No. DEN-06, DEN-0513572), the Defendant’s confirmation of the head office of China H that it was illegal product, and the fact that the price of the unit price declaration submitted by the Defendant is less than the distance, it can be recognized that the above D’s trademark was attached by infringing the trademark rights of the trademark holder.

The acquittal portion

1. The summary of the facts charged is the Internet from January 10, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

arrow