All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the manufacturing business and wholesale business of industrial hand hand and the export business of hand hand hand, and the trademark right holder of the following trademark (hereinafter “registered trademark of this case”).

The filing date of separate marks / the filing date of registration / the filing date of the mark E/ F date / the registration number No. 1 of this case / The filing date of the mark E/ the F date/ the registration number No. 2 of this case / the F date/ the registration number H

B. From around 1998, the Plaintiff produces and sells a large-scale Hand product (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s product”) under the name of “I” as follows.

(c)

Plaintiff’s business employees;

J established the Defendant on July 4, 2017, when the Plaintiff Company retired, for the purpose of manufacturing industrial hardware.

From February 2018, the Defendant started to manufacture and sell the following large air conditioners employed by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant products”).

A mark "D" (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant-use mark") is inscribed on the back side of the Defendant-produced fish hand.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 19 (which include a number of numbers)

The key point of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the infringement of trademark rights as a whole of the arguments and the purport of the entire pleadings is the Plaintiff’s trademark combining L and Alphaba, the head of K’s English name, and the classification number C of the Plaintiff’s products, and the part of “C” falls under the essential part. The mark 2 of this case is only composed of the number “C”.

The Defendant’s mark is comprised of N and Alphaba, M, and numerc, which combines the head of the Defendant’s English trade name, and the essential part of the Defendant’s mark constitutes “C”.

Since the Defendant’s name and the Plaintiff’s respective registered trademarks of this case are identical to their essential parts, the Defendant’s act of manufacturing and selling the Defendant’s mark on the Defendant’s product constitutes infringement of the trademark right of this case.