1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is granted the exclusive sales authority in Korea from C companies that established in Australia and sell chemical parts. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff sent “D” trademark to Korea and sold chemical parts with “D” trademark.

B. The Defendant sold parts of the design similar to the design of the part of the chemical parts sold by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the chemical parts of this case”) at the place of business located in the city of Overcheon with the trade name of “E”.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5-10 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant sold household goods manufactured at the Vietnam plant manufacturing the products of Australia, thereby selling the same as the Plaintiff.

The defendant's act constitutes an act of transferring, displaying, and importing goods which imitates the type (e.g., shape, color, luminous or its combination) of goods produced by another person (e.g., shape, color, luminous or its combination) under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (i) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15580, Apr. 17, 2018; hereinafter the same).

B) The Defendant’s assertion was already published in the publication published in around 2007. As such, the Defendant’s act sold goods that imitated the form of the product for which three years have passed since the form of the product was kept, and does not constitute an unfair competition act under the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 1 (i) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act. (ii) According to the written evidence No. 6, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant as the violation of the Design Protection Act and the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and the prosecution made a decision not to prosecute the Defendant on August 27, 2018 on the ground that evidence was insufficient.