Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Determination as to claims caused by unfair competitive acts
A. Basic facts (1) The Plaintiff’s design (i) applied the following common designs to all travelling bags (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff’s products”) since it was applied to the German company that manufactures a bridge for travel and exports and sells it to the 80 countries around the world, and to the home (generally increased and tensions), i.e., the grove design (generally increased and grove timber, stone, metal, etc.) and the home, etc. generated with the home in 1950.
(2) The Defendant imported and sold the Defendant products from the Austria Scces Deved Scces Deved, located in Hong Kong, a trademark “ELE”, as a company engaged in a virtual and travel wholesale retail business, export and import business, etc.
The Defendant’s product was distributed domestically to the consumer price of approximately KRW 20-3 million through online stores, such as department stores, gralets, and Internet shopping malls, while attaching a tag indicating “ELE” brand.
Some images of the Defendant Product are as follows:
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 13, 32, 33, 52, 64 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant sells the Defendant’s product in the same or similar form as the type of the Plaintiff’s product, which is a mark of goods (for travel) widely known in the Republic of Korea. ① The act of causing confusion with the Plaintiff’s product, which is an act of causing confusion with the Plaintiff’s product, under Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), ② the act of impairing the distinctiveness or reputation of the Plaintiff’s product, and is an act of impairing the distinctiveness or reputation of the Plaintiff’