The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates a household wholesale and retail business with the trade name “D” in Gwangju Mine-gu C.

No one shall deliver, sell, forge, imitate, or possess a trademark identical with or similar to another person's registered trademark for the purpose of using or making another person use such trademark for goods identical with or similar to the designated goods, and shall use another person's name, trade name, trademark, container or package of goods, or any other mark identical or similar to the name, trade name, trademark, or goods of another person widely known in the Republic of Korea, or sell, distribute, import, or export goods using

Nevertheless, the Defendant, around April 201 to June 6, 201, supplied the Victim F with the Victim F as designated goods from the “D” as a whole design (G) H bed as of August 23, 2010, and displayed in the store with the c bed, the Defendant, on October 23, 2011, sold to many and unspecified consumers, such as the victim F, who registered the trademark “J” with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as of February 23, 2010, packages the bed to the printed packing box and sells it for 550,000 won.

Accordingly, the defendant prosecuted only the victim's registered trademark and the design trademark law.

B used the goods identical to the designated goods and, at the same time, used the trademark of the injured party widely recognized in Korea, thereby causing confusion with the goods of the injured party.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant intrusion was registered as a trademark called “J” and denied the charges by asserting that it is difficult to regard the trademark “J” as a trademark widely known in the Republic of Korea.

B. The Defendant in violation of the Trademark Act knew that the instant intrusion was registered as a trademark of “J”.