2018Ruling 903 Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

A person shall be appointed.

Residence

Reference domicile

Isra (Institution of Prosecution), Isra (Public Trial), Isra (Public Trial)

Law Firm LLC LLC

Attorney Lee Chang-hoon

October 16, 2018

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 400,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

Criminal facts

No one shall engage in an unfair competition act that causes confusion with another person's goods by using marks identical or similar to another person's name, trade name, trademark, container or package of goods, or other marks indicating another person's goods, which are widely known in the Republic of Korea, or by selling, distributing, importing, or exporting goods using such marks. Nevertheless, the defendant is engaged in beauty and beauty business on the second floor in Gwangjin-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and is engaged in beauty and beauty business from July 1, 2015 to February 2, 2018.

The act of impairing the distinctiveness or reputation of the victim's mark was committed by using the trade name in the victim's multi-child industry, which is similar to the well-known trademark, as the trade name in the victim's multi-child industry, without justifiable grounds, in the manner of indicating "a series of hedges in building, outer walls, etc." during the operation of the above beauty service room to the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement of the police concerning B;

1. A report of investigation (the attachment of a photograph of the Hague);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 18 (3) 1 and 2 subparagraph 1 (c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, and selection of fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

[Defendant and defense counsel asserts that the trade name used by the defendant is not similar to multiple lawsuits, and there was no intention of damage. It is recognized by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case.

The following circumstances are as follows: ① The trade name used by the defendant is marked as a height in the virtual shape and is marked as a hedge link, and some of the different points are different from the Gazines, but the Gazines cannot be seen as a trade name or mark in the virtual shape, and the part of the Gaz is also different from the Gazines, and most different from the Gazines, and the design actually used is identical in most cases, and the design of the Gazy is also copied as it is "in addition to Daz." (Investigation Records 46 pages), ② The unfair competition act as referred to in subparagraph 1 (c) of Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act does not consider similarity with the trade name widely known domestically, and ③ the design of the Gazys used in the defendant's beauty room in light of the design of the Gazines and the design of the Gazys, the above argument is without merit.)

Considering the sentencing conditions indicated in the trial of this case, the sentencing conditions indicated in the trial of this case are considered, such as the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same crime, the fact that the defendant has not committed any more damage by removing all signboards, and the degree of damage is not significant as the defendant's business size can be known.

Judges Roster