logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.12.15 2015나2074198
저작권침해금지등
Text

1. The part of the first instance judgment, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded and reduced in this court, and “C”.

Reasons

1. The reasoning that the court should explain this part of the premise facts is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the use of similar name

A. The Plaintiff’s business mark, “D,” which is the Plaintiff’s business mark, is widely recognized in the Republic of Korea as a mark indicating “online back-to-door operation business,” and the Defendant’s operation of “E” using similar “E,” thereby causing consumers to confuse with the Plaintiff’s business facilities or activities. Therefore, the Defendant’s act constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

B. Determination 1) Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that “A mark indicating the identity of another person’s business widely known in the Republic of Korea” refers to a case where traders or consumers recognize a specific business separately from other businesses within the Republic of Korea or within a certain scope, and thus, whether such mark constitutes a “D” is objectively widely known in terms of the period, method, pattern, quantity of use, scope of transaction, transaction, transaction circumstances, and social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da9822, Dec. 22, 2011). (b) B) Then, considering the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that “D” was widely known between the users of the Internet and the users of the Internet at the latest around July 2013, as a mark indicating the Plaintiff’s business mark and the prior site operation business mark, based on the overall purport of the statements and arguments as stated in the evidence No. 2, 7, 8, 9, 35, and 36.

① The Plaintiff’s website is a solitary website that the name derived from the “R” of GTV in Japan.

arrow