The case holding that there is no need for provisional disposition to prohibit the manufacture or sale of goods based on trademark rights.

Although the applicant's right to be preserved based on the applicant's trademark, the applicant does not actually engage in business activities using the trademark on the designated goods in Korea and it cannot be said that the shampoo manufactured by the applicant is being imported in Korea or there is a prospect to be imported in the future. Therefore, there is no need to prohibit the respondent from manufacturing shampoo and

Articles 23 and 35 of the Trademark Act, Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

crelier diaporads

Administrator of the Peace Keeping Industry Corporation, Kim Il-il

Seoul Central District Court (79Ka7930) of the first instance court

1. Revocation of the part of the original judgment against the respondent, and the applicant's objection corresponding to this part is dismissed;

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the applicant.

3. The portion which ordered cancellation of the original judgment in paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The Respondent may not use a trademark or a container as described in attached Tables 1 and 2, or sell, export, or detect shampoo and shampoo products manufactured by the Respondent or “HERBAL ESSNE”, or sell, export, or gather shampoo and shampoo products using the shampoo and shampoo products.

The respondent shall hold the possession of shampoo and rinse products using the above trademark or containers, which are or will be kept in his factory, office, or any other place, and shall order the Respondent to keep them in custody to the crinse entrusted by the Claimant.

such purport shall be publicly notified in an appropriate manner.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the respondent.

The respondent is seeking a judgment such as the written judgment.

(1) First, we judge the respondent's main defense.

The respondent argues that the above application of this case is unlawful because the Respondent, which is the applicant, is merely a corporation with the capacity of a party under the Civil Procedure Act. However, Article 47 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the Respondent's capacity is governed by the Civil Act and other Acts, and the commercial capacity of the Respondent is determined by the law on the location of the place of business of the Respondent. According to the whole purport of the entries in the certificate of corporate nationality and arguments submitted by the Respondent, the Respondent is a corporation which has established the main place of business in the United States, and is so-called commercial company which manufactures and sells goods. The Respondent's above argument is without merit, and the Respondent's right to use the Respondent's trademark as a foreign corporation has no address or place of business in the Republic of Korea, and the Respondent's right to use the Respondent's trademark infringement is not legitimate, and thus the Respondent's right to use the Respondent's trademark infringement under Article 2 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Respondent's right to use the Respondent's trademark infringement.

(2) Furthermore, we examine the right to preserve the merits.

(A) First, we decide on the petitioner’s claim under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

The applicant under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is a manufacturer of cosmetic 1 in the world with its head office in the United States. Since from the beginning of the 1970s, shampoo 2 was produced and put in containers such as her liquid frys and specifications in attached Table 1-1 and 2, and sold her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hers.

However, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act aims to regulate unlawful activities that impair the order of competition by unfair acts, maintain fair and commercial order, and protect a person who maintains monopoly at the same time, by putting in place a trademark or utility model right without being registered. Thus, the applicant's request for suspension of unfair competition under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act shall be deemed to have known of the applicant's above goods, and its operating profits are likely to be infringed upon, since it is difficult to recognize that the applicant's request for suspension of unfair competition had been made in Korea, since it is hard to say that certain goods including the trademark have been displayed in the above unfair competition itself, and it is hard to say that the applicant's request for suspension of the above 7th anniversary of the date of entry into the above unfair competition act, and that the applicant's request for suspension of the business activities at the above 19th anniversary of the date of entry into the above 7th anniversary of the date of entry into the above 9th anniversary of the fact that the applicant's request for suspension of the business activities at the above 9th day of entry into the Republic of Korea or foreigner's advertising.

(B) We examine the following applicant's claims based on trademark rights.

According to the contents of Nos. 10, which are not disputed in the establishment of the trademark registration register, the applicant can recognize that the applicant has registered the cosmetic which does not fall under any category different from the navigation fees of Nos. 12 of the product classification of the attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trademark Act as the designated goods, and the respondent uses the trademark "herherheral" on the shamper and shamper products manufactured by him/her. Thus, the applicant's registered trademark is written in Korean, and the trademark used by the respondent is different from his/her appearance, and the above two trademarks are different from their appearance, but the above two trademarks are deemed similar trademarks, and barring any special circumstance, the applicant may request the respondent not to use the trademark indicated as "herheral" on the basis of the above trademark registration.

However, according to the former part of Article 45 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, the respondent's trademark registration should be cancelled if the applicant fails to use the registered trademark on the designated goods in Korea without any justifiable reason. However, since four years have passed since the registration of the above trademark, the applicant's trademark registration cannot exercise the above trademark rights until the date of its registration. However, according to the purport of the above facts and arguments, the applicant's shampoo and shampoo products cannot be used normally in the domestic market because the applicant's registered goods cannot be used on the designated goods because the applicant's trademark registration's non-use of the registered trademark becomes invalid because the applicant's trademark registration's non-use of the registered trademark is no more than the applicant's non-use of the registered goods' non-use of the trademark under the former part of Article 45 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, and the applicant's trademark registration's non-use of the registered goods' non-use of the trademark cannot be cancelled for reasons for non-use of the trademark under Article 45 (1) of the Trademark Act.

However, according to the former facts of recognition, the trademark registered by the respondent is recognized as "HEBAL" and "herbal permission" in Korean, so the trademark of the Union is identical to half of the applicant's appearance and name indicated in the Roman that the respondent prohibits its use, and the concept is entirely different from that of "herbal", and it cannot be viewed as the same trademark as a whole. Therefore, the respondent cannot be said to be able to use even the trademark indicated as "herheral" in accordance with the above registered trademark right that the respondent becomes the right holder, so there is no ground for the second latter part of the respondent's assertion.

Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to file a claim against the respondent for the use of the trademark indicated as "HERBAL" or "non-use of containers such as the description in the claim column, on the basis of the above registered trademark right, but at least the respondent has the right not to use the shoo manufactured and sold by the respondent, which is called "herherheral".

(3) Furthermore, the applicant is seeking to export shampoo and shampoo products to Korea by using containers such as the trademark and the description in the column of claim indicated in the preceding paragraph (2) for the necessity of preserving this case. As such, the respondent argues that it is necessary for the respondent to immediately suspend the manufacture of shampoo and shampoo products using the trademark and containers such as the description in the claim(s) in this case to the extent that it is necessary for the applicant to do so before the judgment on the merits regarding the sale of shampoo and shampoo products, but the applicant cannot be deemed to have actually used the above trademark as designated goods in Korea since before December 26, 1975, and the applicant cannot be deemed to have actually used the above trademark and the above shampoo products to have been sold from 197 shampoo and shampoo and shampoo products to the extent that there is no need for the applicant to promptly suspend the sale of the shampoo and shampoo products before the judgment on the import sh and 297 shoo products.

(4) Conclusion

Therefore, the petitioner's objection in this case shall be dismissed without merit, and since the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, the respondent's appeal shall be accepted, and the part against the respondent in this part of the original judgment shall be revoked, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and the part ordering the cancellation of the original judgment shall be provisionally executed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Byung-hun (Presiding Judge)