beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 16, 2016 to June 15, 2016, as follows.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the producer of the following Do.
1) The date of production of Plaintiff 1’s design: (b) the date of production: July 8, 2009, Plaintiff 2’s design: (b) the date of production: November 29, 2004.
The defendant is the right holder of the service mark below.
1) The number of Defendant 1’s service mark A/ the filing date/public notice number/public notice date/public notice date/registration date/registration date: B/C/D/E/F/G) mark: (2) the number of Defendant 2’s service mark (attached Form) marks (attached Form) is applied / the filing date/public notice number/public notice date/public notice date/registration date: H/I/J/K/L/B) mark:
C. At present, the Defendant currently uses the signboards, advertisements, placards, mer new boards, and printed matters (hereinafter “signboards, etc.”) bearing marks of Defendant 2’s service marks in the restaurants operated by the Defendant.
On June 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the use of the service mark Nos. 1 and 2 by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 constitutes an infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright in the 1 and 2 design.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 7, 9 through 11 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same)
2. The plaintiff's assertion infringed the plaintiff's copyright by manufacturing the mark of the service mark of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 identical or similar to the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, which is the plaintiff's work, and registering it as the service mark or using it in the restaurant operated by the defendant. ① With respect to the use of the defendant No. 2 service mark, the act of infringement is suspended, the defendant No. 2 service mark is discontinued, the signboard with the defendant No. 2 service mark is discarded, and ② the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages caused by the infringement of the copyright (right of reproduction, the right of display and the right of attribution)
3. Determination
A. The plaintiff 1 and 2’s proposal is a work protected under the Copyright Act, and is required to be creative as a requirement for a work protected under the Copyright Act, but the originality here is complete.