logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.12.17 2015고단5789
상표법위반등
Text

1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

38,232,350 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

2. Defendant B, C.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2015 Highest 5789"

1. Defendant A’s violation of the Trademark Act, Defendant B and C’s violation of the Trademark Act (one-time “L”) was the actual operator of anO registered under the name of Defendant’s wife located in Jung-gu, Seoul and 267, Jung-gu, Seoul. Defendant B made a disguised import of sports clothing, such as the contact and label attached to the “P” at the factory located in China where Defendant B was registered and the trademark was registered. On September 201, 201, Defendant B made a disguised import of sports clothing, such as the contact and label attached to the “P” in the factory located in Q “R” store located in Q, Gyeonggi-do leased from Defendant C, and removed the contact and label from the factory located in Q, Gyeonggi-do, the victim’s owner of the trademark (BLKK, registration number 09, 0932759) by using self-denunciation machines, and the trademark attached to the “P” and the trademark attached to the “Sk-do et al. al., to the Republic of Korea-do.”

Defendant

A from February 17, 201 to April 3, 2015, from the aforementioned manufacturing factory and warehouse to the aforementioned manufacturing factory and warehouse, it manufactured, sold, and stored a total of 40,868 points (an amount equivalent to KRW 8.57,536,00 at the fixed price of goods) of the clothing on which a forged trademark is attached, as described in the attached list of crimes (2) in the aforementioned manner, as described in the attached list of crimes (2) in the same manner, for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, or selling, and U and T from December 6, 2014 to March 30, 2015, KRW 10,494 in the above Article (an amount equivalent to KRW 91,761,00 at the fixed price of goods).

Accordingly, Defendant A conspired with T and U to infringe on the trademark rights of the victims, and Defendant B, from May 10, 2013 to be aware that Defendant A was imported in disguisedly for the purpose of manufacturing the above Articles, allowed the use of the P trademark to be attached to the Chinese clothes, and transferred the means of access to the V business name and the account referred to in paragraph (2).

arrow