(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.01 2015가단5088826

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 2016.06.01 2015가단5088826

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its objection from January 9, 2015 to June 1, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiff is a trademark right holder in the Republic of Korea, Japan, Italian, etc. of the trademark “METTRCITY” (hereinafter “instant trademark”). The Defendant entered into an agreement on the use of the instant trademark with the Plaintiff and manufactures and sells scarfs with the Plaintiff.

On March 16, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a trademark use agreement with the Defendant on June 30, 2014, under which the trademark of this case was attached and sold to the Scarf and spller.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract” and the written contract is called the “instant contract”). B.

In order to maintain the brand value of the trademark of this case which has relatively high-class image, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to sell scarf and scarf at a discounted rate of up to 30% compared to the arm’s length price in the contract of this case (Article 5(g) of the contract of this case) and agreed to the legal relationship at the time of termination of the contract of this case as follows:

(A) Article 9(a)(b) of the same contract. The Defendant may not manufacture the goods by attaching the trademark of this case after the termination of the contract of this case, and the goods already produced shall be completed within six months after the termination of the contract of this case.

Provided, That in such cases, the defendant shall obtain prior consent from the plaintiff, and the trademark user fee shall be determined by the amount of the trademark user fee for the last six months during the period.

(b) The defendant is unable to sell products at a price lower than the arm's length price at the time of termination of the contract without the plaintiff's explicit consent, and inventory remaining after the expiration of the sales period for the six-month period specified earlier shall be discarded in the plaintiff's presence, and the defendant shall not demand the plaintiff

C. The instant contract is not extended or renewed, and the contract expired at the end of the contract earlier, and the Plaintiff was on March 2013.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.08.12 2014가합103553

-서울북부지방법원 2016.09.30 2016나1739

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.16 2019가합523794

-서울고등법원 2006. 3. 29. 선고 2005나66260 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가단5308094