beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. Defendant B is a corporation with the objective of selling clothes, etc., and Defendant A is the representative director of the above corporation.
A. From December 2014 to June 2016, Defendant A advertised from D Co., Ltd. located in Seongdong-gu, Seoul to sell clothing, cap, etc. bearing the same trademark as “F” (G) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on November 18, 2008, Defendant A advertised by using an Internet homepage (H) to sell the clothing, cap, etc. bearing the same trademark as the trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on November 18, 2008, Defendant A sold 4,626 points with the above “F” trademark for the same period, and kept 3,685 points to sell the remaining 3,685 points, thereby infringing the trademark right of the trademark right holder.
B. Defendant B’s representative A infringed on the trademark right holder’s trademark right as described in paragraph (1), at the time and place described in paragraph (1).
2. Determination
A. The crime of infringement of trademark rights under the Trademark Act is committed intentionally. Even if a trademark identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark is used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods, if it is not known that another person’s registered trademark is a trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4473, Apr. 28, 2011). B. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, at the time of the sale of the goods bearing a trademark identical or similar to “F” trademark (hereinafter “instant trademark”), Defendant A recognized that the trademark was another person’s registered trademark or had an intention to commit an infringement of trademark rights.
It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
① The Defendants do not directly manufacture products using the trademark of this case, but imported and sold the products using the trademark of this case through the JA which concluded a contract for the exclusive supply of the trademark of this case with the International company of the United Kingdom, the manufacturer of the products of this case, and the said IO in many countries.