The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) No person violating the Trademark Act shall use without permission a trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark of another person on goods identical or similar to the designated goods;

From April 2016 to December 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) manufactured a P.O.P (P-Ofurch) display stand, and sold online shopping mall D; and (b) placed an advertisement with the owner of the trademark as “H” a product identical or similar to the trademark registration number F, registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on November 29, 2007; and (c) placed an advertisement with the name of “G” (hereinafter “H”) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as the trademark registration number; and (d) infringed the trademark right of another person by indicating a trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark of this case.

B. The Defendant violated the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, during the period described in paragraph (1), committed an unfair competition act that causes confusion with the products of the victim company by using a product identical with or similar to the “EG” trademark of the victim (ju) who widely recognized in Korea, by advertising an acrying an acrying with the name, name, etc. of the product on one side when manufacturing P.O.P (P-Of-Purch) display products at the same place and selling them to Internet shopping mall D, etc.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to a violation of the Trademark Act: (a) even if the act of infringing another person’s registered trademark right was conducted before a trial decision invalidating such registration becomes final and conclusive, if a trial decision invalidating trademark registration becomes final and conclusive, the trademark right has never existed from the beginning; and (b) such act cannot be deemed as a trademark infringement, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do839, May 16, 1996).