beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, as to the claim of the principal lawsuit, is a merchant who made and retailed implied and (i) similar products with the trade name “C” from July 1, 1986.
(3) On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the signboards “E” at the Hyundai Department D’s stores without the Plaintiff’s consent; and (b) sold the signboards at will without the Plaintiff’s consent; (c) infringed the Plaintiff’s business interest by causing customers to misunderstand that the Plaintiff had engaged in an implied sales event at the said department store; and (d) this constitutes “act of unfair competition,” which constitutes “an act of causing confusion with another person’s business facilities or activities by using things identical or similar to another person’s name, trade name, mark, and other marks widely known in the Republic of Korea” under Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the video of the evidence No. 3, even though the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant posted a wooden board in the above date and at the above place “F” and sold impliedly, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 and No. 2, the Defendant’s implied sale is a company that exclusively distributes and sells the Plaintiff’s goods (i.e., the Plaintiff’s goods (e., the Plaintiff’s goods) in Seoul and Gyeonggi area pursuant to the Plaintiff’s total sales contract (ii) with the Plaintiff, not the Defendant directly manufactured or purchased from other companies, but the Plaintiff’s goods (i.e., the Plaintiff’s goods) in Seoul and Gyeonggi area.
It can be known that the plaintiff's production, which was supplied by the plaintiff, impliedly, is difficult to view the defendant's above sales act as constituting an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.
Therefore, it is true.