beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court adds the judgment to this court under Paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Additional determination by this Court
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The first instance judgment determined that the use contract of the instant trademark, etc. and the obligor’s return of the instant goods to the Plaintiff constituted a single act, but the said two acts cannot be deemed as a single juristic act, on the premise that they are one act. However, the said two acts cannot be deemed as a single juristic act. 2) The use contract of the instant trademark, etc. constitutes a non-exclusive license contract rather than an exclusive license contract, and thus, there is no possibility that the obligor’
3) As the Defendant denies the validity of the instant trademark right, etc., the Defendant ought to prove a specific amount of profit that the obligor should gain as the said trademark right is denied. 4) Under the principle of the exhaustion of rights, the obligor cannot assert the trademark right, and the Plaintiff may sell the goods returned by the obligor without limitation.
B. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion appears to be premised on the fact that the contract for the use of the trademark right of this case, etc. of this case, etc. of this case, can be a biased act of evaluating the obligor’s return of goods to the Plaintiff. The contract for the use of the trademark right of this case, etc. of this case, etc. of this case, regardless of the obligor’s return of goods to the Plaintiff, is a separate act of disposal as its own, regardless of whether the obligor returned the goods. As cited earlier, the trademark right of this case or copyright as an intangible property right can be transferred by means of the permission for use (establishment of the right to use) or the permission for use. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this premise is without merit.