The case holding that although the mark of the registered trademark of the automobile manufacturing company was affixed to the packing box to clarify the applicable type of car which is used by air clor, it cannot be viewed as using the registered trademark on the ground that it was merely used to explain the purpose of use of parts, etc., in light of all the circumstances, and the air clor is easily distinguishable from the clor supplied by the automobile manufacturing company, and it cannot be viewed as an act that causes confusion with another person's goods.

The case holding that it cannot be deemed that a registered trademark is used on the ground that the mark of the registered trademark of the automobile manufacturer was indicated by the vehicle manufacturer in order to clarify the applicable tea used by the clor in the packing box, but it is merely a use for explaining the purpose of use of parts, etc. in light of all the circumstances, and that the clor is easily distinguishable from the clor supplied by the vehicle manufacturer, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it causes confusion with another person's goods.

Article 6 subparag. 1 and Article 93 of the Trademark Act, Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) and Article 18(3)1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 9No823 delivered on February 14, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, based on the evidence of the first instance court from January 1, 1999, manufactured clicker, which is a part of the automobile, only after the first instance police officer, manufactured clicker, which is a part of the automobile. In order to clarify the applicable clicker's clicker's clicker's click box, the court below indicated that the Defendant's act of using clicker's clicker's clicker's clicker's click type "math", "EX" and "Ekh" click's click box's click box's click type "this case's click type" and it stated that the Defendant's act of using clicker's clicker's clicker's clicker's click box's cl.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the use of a trademark or by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)