Plaintiff
Bosch Rexrothb Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Yellow-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant
Defendant (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Conclusion of Pleadings
July 10, 2015
Text
1. On March 4, 2002, the defendant performed the procedure for transferring the registration of domain name "Sb.co.kr" registered in the later business on March 4, 2002.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Purport of claim
The same shall apply to the order.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff was established around July 12, 1956 and is engaged in the research and development and manufacturing business of contact points, co-rating agents, cleaning agents, etc., and the plaintiff's parent company's HWorth Limeded was registered on August 4, 1997, after the plaintiff's parent company registered the domain name "H KWorth Lbbe.com" and is currently being used as the plaintiff's official web site until now.
B. The Defendant established around 2001 and sold products, such as lubric oil, washing agents, and solvents, entered into a transfer agreement with the Plaintiff in Korea around 2002, sold the Plaintiff’s products in Korea, and registered the domain name “elb.co.k” (hereinafter “the domain name of this case”).
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated the transfer contract on June 2014, and the Plaintiff entered into a new transfer contract with BRC on July 1, 2014 and then sold the Plaintiff’s products as an official Korean agent.
D. The defendant has used the domain name of this case until now, and before operating the web site using the domain name of this case, "www.zungcheche.com" used the same domain name as his company's trade name as the defendant's official web site.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, 11, 12, 15, Eul evidence 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Relevant statutes
Article 12(1) of the Internet Address Resources Act provides that “No person shall interfere with the registration of a domain name, etc. of a person with a legitimate title, or register, possess or use a domain name, etc. for unlawful purposes, such as obtaining unjust benefits from a person with a legitimate title,” and Article 12(2) of the same Act provides that “Any person with a legitimate title may request the court to cancel or transfer the registration of a domain name, etc. if he/she has registered, possessed or used a domain name, etc. in violation of paragraph (1).”
B. Whether the Plaintiff constitutes “justifiable title holder”
1) In order for an applicant for the cancellation or transfer of the registration of a domain name to have “justifiable title” on the grounds that there is a close relation between the domain name and the name, trade name, trademark, service mark and other marks identical or similar to the domain name, as well as the name, trade name, trademark, service mark are already registered or used for a considerable period of time in the Republic of Korea or abroad before another person registers the domain name, and there is a circumstance that the cancellation or transfer of the domain name without paying the price is deemed reasonable in light of the concept of justice and that there is sufficient need to protect the domain name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da57661, Sept. 12, 2013).
2) In light of the above legal principles, the above evidence and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 14 through 15, 18, 20 through 23 added the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the plaintiff was established on July 12, 1956 and entered into a transfer contract with 55 countries, and distributed products global, and the plaintiff is also a company that supplies products to 27 companies through official agencies in Korea, ② the plaintiff registered the above domain name as well as the above domain name as its official web site until August 4, 197, and the plaintiff's trade name as well as the above domain name "the same parts are identical to the above domain name," and the plaintiff's trade name as well as "the plaintiff's construction and operation of the domain name of this case are likely to cause confusion with the plaintiff's "the above domain name of this case" and "the plaintiff's construction and operation of the domain name of this case are likely to cause confusion with the plaintiff's "the plaintiff's construction and operation of the domain name of this case."
C. Whether there exists “unlawful purpose” for the Defendant
1) Whether there exists "illegal purposes" under Article 12 (1) of the Internet Address Resources Act shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following: name, trade name, trademark, service mark and any other mark (hereinafter "subject mark"), degree of perception or creativity of a legitimate title; degree of the same or similar mark; whether a domain name has been registered, possessed, or used; whether a person knew of the subject mark; whether a domain name has been aware of the subject of registration; whether a person had a power to obtain economic benefits by selling or lending a domain name; whether a web site under the domain name has been opened and its web site has been operated; whether a web site is actually operated; whether the subject mark has the same or similar economic relation with the goods or service business, etc. on the web site; whether the subject mark is identical or similar to the goods or service business; whether an Internet user is induced to the web site due to credit and customer attraction caused by the subject mark; and other circumstances surrounding the registration, possession, or use of the domain name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da463616, Apr. 26, 2016).
2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the similarity between the domain name of this case and the mark of this case, the background of the registration of the domain name of this case, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, etc. 1 and the whole purport of each of the evidence and arguments, i.e., ① the size and status of the plaintiff company's like industry, the similarity between the mark and the domain name of this case, and the identity of the plaintiff's business, are likely to attract Internet users to the web site using the domain name of this case established by the defendant according to the plaintiff's credit and customer attraction, and since the Internet Address Resources Act did not have the duty of transferring the domain name of this case to the plaintiff's "the act of holding and using the domain name of this case" did not necessarily have the possibility of inducing them from the time of the registration of the domain name of this case, and ② the defendant's act of selling the domain name of this case is likely to have been registered for the plaintiff's specific introduction of the plaintiff's products. It appears that the plaintiff's web site of this case and the defendant's Internet address.
D. Sub-committee
Therefore, pursuant to Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for transferring registration of the domain name of this case registered with the plaintiff on March 4, 2002.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge)