Plaintiff (Law Firm Han River, Attorneys Kim Jae-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

KM Korea Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Song-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 1, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

It is confirmed that the defendant's domain name "k2.co.r" against the plaintiff does not exist any right to claim the registration of transfer.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence of 1 to 4, Eul evidence of 1 to 28, and there is no other counter-proof.

A. On January 28, 2000, the Plaintiff registered the domain name “k2.co. km” (hereinafter “instant domain name”) with the Korea Internet & Security Agency on the Internet & Security Agency, a registration agent for the domain name on January 28, 200, and has so far.

B. The Defendant is a trademark holder of each of the following trademarks (hereinafter referred to as “instant trademark”; when named, the Defendant’s trademark right holder of the instant two trademarks; from around 1972 to around 38,000, the Defendant used the trademarks, etc. identical to the instant trademark; from around 2001 to around 30 billion won, the Defendant’s total sales amounting to 3 billion won, including 4 billion won, and 3 billion won, from around 2002 to around 200, using various advertising methods, such as radio, subway, advertising and bus outer walls; and from around 2002, the Defendant continued to use the instant two trademarks in full. Meanwhile, from around 2007 to 200 billion, the Defendant’s total sales amounting to 4 billion won, including 3 billion won, and 1.5 billion won, including 3 billion won, for about 200 billion won, since 201.

(i)

- Trademark registration number (trademark registration number 1 omitted);

- The filing date of August 28, 2004

- The date of registration on June 2, 2008

- Designated goods of Category 25, industrialized and safe

(ii)

- Trademark registration number (trademark registration number 2 omitted)

- The filing date of May 8, 2007

- Date of registration January 6, 2009

- Designated goods No. 25(s)(s)

C. On December 14, 2009, the Defendant filed an application with the Internet Address Dispute Resolution Committee for dispute mediation of the domain name of this case against the Plaintiff. On February 18, 2010, the Internet Address Dispute Resolution Committee decided to transfer the domain name of this case to the Defendant.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff opened a web site after the registration of the domain name of this case and used it for “the website created by the person who knows good mountain,” and around 2002, the Plaintiff’s Branch had the Plaintiff use it as a sales site of computers and computer peripheral devices, and again used it as an information sharing site on off-the-counter farming techniques from around 2005 to 2007. From around 2008, the Plaintiff closed the web site and did not use it for December 14, 2009, for which the Defendant applied for the above dispute mediation.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the registration and possession of the domain name of this case for the purpose of selling and publicizing agricultural products produced by the Plaintiff and local residents residing in the Plaintiff does not constitute an unlawful purpose, and the Defendant asserts that there is no right to claim for the registration of domain name transfer under Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act (hereinafter “Internet Address Resources Act”).

B. Determination

According to Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act, a person with a legitimate title may file a claim for cancellation or transfer of the registration of a domain name against a person who registers, possesses, or uses the domain name for an unlawful purpose. The defendant used the trademark identical to the trademark of this case for a long time from 2002 to 2004 on the continuous and intensive use of the trademark of this case, and the trademark of this case had been recognized as the trademark of this case to the majority of users as the trademark of this case. Thus, the defendant recognized the acquisition of distinctiveness and well-knownness since the trademark of this case was recognized as the trademark of this case, and the defendant is the trademark holder of the trademark of this case with the trademark of this case with the trademark "K2" as a trademark of this case, barring special circumstances, the defendant can be deemed as a person with a legitimate title as to the domain name of this case within the scope of identity and identity of the trademark of this case, and the plaintiff can file a claim for cancellation of the registration of the domain name of this case as well as the trademark of this case for the plaintiff 2's registration and possession of the domain name of this case.

Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act provides that "the establishment of a subjective requirement, such as obstructing the registration of a domain name, etc. or obtaining unjust profits from a person who has a legitimate authority, may, in principle, register a domain name freely on a first-come, first-served basis according to the simplification and swiftness of the domain name registration system, but it is not allowed to duplicate registration of the same domain name in order to have the domain name function as an Internet address. Therefore, in light of all the circumstances, it is interpreted to the purport that the possession and use of a domain name should be prohibited in a case where there are special circumstances leading to the abuse of rights as a person who has the right to register a domain name.

From this point of view, it appears that the Plaintiff had been using the domain name of this case 20 years from 1972 to 20 years from 20 days from 20 years from 30 days from 20 days from 20 days from 30 days from 20 days from 20 days from 30 days from 20 days from 30 days from 4 days from 20 days from 20 days from 30 days from 20 days from 20 days from 20 days from 30 days from 4 days from 20 days from 10 days from 20 days from 30 days from 4 days from 20 days from 20 days from 30 days from 2 days from 20 days from 20 days from 20 days from 30 days from 30 days from 20 days from 20 days from 20 days from 30 days from 200.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act, the defendant may request the plaintiff to transfer the domain name of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)

1) The domain name of this case consists of the part " k2" and the part " k2", which indicate the part "co", which constitutes the top and second stages of the domain name, and the part " k2, which represents the domain name of this case, and the part "co.", which is managed by the Korea Internet & Security Agency, and is common to many domain names. Thus, since the domain name of this case is managed by the Korea Internet & Security Agency and is common to indicate that the registrant is an agency, the part which has a very distinctive character in the domain name of this case is "k2" and the part which has a distinctive character in the plaintiff's domain name is called "k2". Accordingly, in comparison with the trademark of this case, compared with the trademark of this case, the part "k2" and the trademark of this case, which are the part of the domain name of this case, are the same as the part "k2" and the trademark of this case, and is in fact identical with the trademark of this case. Therefore, the name of this case is not the same as the domain name of this case.