The defendant is innocent.

1. The abstract of the facts charged shall not deliver, sell, forge, imitate, or possess a trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark of another person for the purpose of using or making another person use such trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods;

Nevertheless, around 20:05 on July 18, 2013, the Defendant, at the D Center located on the fourth floor of the Busan Central District Office, posted a letter on the website of the sales chain such as Internet women’s clothes operated by the Defendant, for the purpose of selling the arms with which the trademark right holder’s “Mag-ri S.E.E.E.E. L.” (Registration Number No. 0812678) is unable to identify the quantity bearing the trademark identical or similar to the trademark of “Maruciani”, which is identical or similar to the trademark of “Maruciani” and posted it for advertising.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the trademark right of the above trademark right holder.

2. Determination

(a) The scope of protection of a trademark shall be determined by the trademark described in the application form, and the scope of protection of designated goods shall be determined by the goods described in the application form; and

Also, the act of using another person's registered trademark on goods identical to the designated goods as well as the act of using it on goods similar to the designated goods also constitutes infringement

(Articles 52(2) and 66(1) of the Trademark Act. Determination of similarity of designated goods shall be made on the basis of whether the use of a trademark identical or similar to the goods compared to the goods is likely to be mistaken for the goods manufactured or sold by the same business entity. However, determination shall be made in accordance with the general transaction norms by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics of the goods, such as quality, shape, purpose of use, production sector, sales sector, scope of consumers, etc.

B. (See Supreme Court Decisions 82Hu8, Dec. 28, 1982; 97Hu2842, Nov. 23, 1999; 98Hu850, Jul. 28, 2000, etc.)

Facts of recognition

This Court has adopted and investigated lawfully.