The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) by the victim I, the “G” used by the victim I, is valid as a service list, and the defendant was aware that he violated the service list after being notified of the infringement of trademark rights by the above company.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. Article 71(3) of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016) that applies at the time of the instant facts charged provides that “if a trial decision invalidating a trademark registration becomes final and conclusive, the trademark right shall be deemed never to have existed.”

In addition, the act of infringing another person's trademark right was conducted prior to the confirmation of the trial decision invalidating the registration.

Even if a trial decision invalidating a trademark registration becomes final and conclusive, the trademark right infringed was not nonexistent from the beginning. Thus, such act cannot be deemed as an act infringing a trademark right under Article 93 of the Trademark Act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do839 delivered on May 16, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 93Do839 delivered on May 16, 199). (b) We look at this case in light of the above legal principles

According to the records, on December 29, 2010, ① Company I filed an application for a service list of “G” with the designated service business "(use of the traps catched in the territory of the Republic of Korea)" as the designated service business on December 29, 2010. The service list is registered as registration No. H on August 29, 2013; ② Business operators who concluded a franchise contract with I filed an application with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the service list of this case against Company I on December 18, 2014. However, the Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the above appeal on October 23, 2015; ③ The above business operators are also the Patent Court.