1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in manufacturing and selling domestic and foreign health foods, began to sell “YO YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

B. The Defendant, as a corporation engaged in food processing business and sales business, began to sell products listed in attached Form 2, which mainly consisting of white dysios using the attached goods marking from August 2013 to August 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a mark that has acquired widely well-knownness among the pit women, who are customers on the art, and the Defendant sells goods using a mark similar to the instant mark, thereby causing ordinary consumers to confuse with the instant product. This constitutes a product confusion prohibited under Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”).

Therefore, the plaintiff sought prohibition and prevention as stated in the claim under Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act against the defendant, and seek compensation for damages incurred to the plaintiff under Article 5 of the same Act.

B. Determination 1) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (a) uses another person’s name, trade name, trademark, or container or package of goods, or any other mark identical or similar to another person’s goods, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea, or sells, distributes, imports, or exports goods using such mark, thereby causing confusion with another person’s goods.