logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.03 2014가단5052684
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from May 24, 2014 to June 3, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiff, in collaboration with C Co., Ltd. from October 6, 200, owned each service mark right listed in the separate sheet (the service mark referred to in paragraph (1) is expressed in letters as D, which is separate from the service mark referred to in paragraph (2)), and operates EAA, a private teaching institute, etc. in the Seoul Metropolitan Area.

B. From June 13, 2013, the Defendant has been operating the KGH (hereinafter “Defendant mark”) in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the present day with the mutual recognition of the use of the Defendant mark.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s service right by using each service mark listed in the separate sheet without permission, and sought damages against the Defendant.

In regard to this, the Defendant: (a) as the husband transferred the trade name that H used prior to July 2, 1997, when the service mark of this case was registered, through I, it does not infringe the Plaintiff’s service mark right; and (b) the service mark indicated in paragraph (2) of the same list, which was used by the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. (1) The occurrence of liability for damages (1) is similar to the instant service mark and the Defendant mark are likely to cause misconceptions and confusions as to the source of the service, when observing the appearance, name, and concept from the standpoint of ordinary consumers or traders.

In addition, the defendant used the defendant mark similar to the service mark of this case for the business of Bosul Private Teaching Institutes similar to the designated service business of the above service mark.

Therefore, as long as the service mark of this case is widely known and registered at a private teaching institute, the defendant is at least negligent in relation to the infringement.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the service mark listed in the attached list No. 2 was used by the defendant.

arrow