Defendant 1 and two others

Forests and the largest number of public trials.

Law Firm Sejong, et al.

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, by imprisonment for two years, and by imprisonment for three years, respectively.

Seized evidence 8 through 14 shall be confiscated by Defendant 1.

1. Defendant 2

The defendant is a person who is engaged in trade business under the trade name of the insurance company in the Jung-gu in Busan Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted).

(a) Violation of the Copyright Act;

On November 24, 2010, the Defendant imported 15,00 figures in the shape of “le sure” character, which is the copyrighted work of Nonindicted Co. 2, Japan, a copyright holder manufactured in China through Busan port, and around that time sold it to Defendant 3, and up to April 18, 2013, the Defendant sold 83,950 figures in the shape of “le sure” character (import value 265,347,038 won) in the shape of “le sure” character over 10 times until April 18, 2013, thereby infringing the Defendant’s property right for profit or habitually.

B. Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

The Defendant developed the Japanese non-indicted 2 limited liability company's "le sucre" character around November 24, 2004 with its copyright and imported and sold "le sucre" character from around 2006, and entered into a contract with the above non-indicted 2 limited liability company and non-indicted 4 on the domestic commercialization right with the above non-indicted 2 limited liability company and non-indicted 4 corporation on February 2009, and then imported, manufactured, and sold the "le sure" character widely known domestically through the Busan port around November 24, 2010, and sold the same 15,00 character as the "le sure" character from around April 18, 2013 to 36.5 billion won with its imported goods or similar goods imported from the "le sure" character, 15,000 won with its imported goods or similar goods imported from the non-indicted 2 and 36.375 billion won with its imported goods.

C. Violation of the Trademark Act

From January 22, 2013 to April 18, 2013, the Defendant imported Nonindicted 14,900 molds (import price of KRW 63,215,149) on which Nonindicted 1’s trademark registration (trademark registration number 2 omitted) is attached, which is identical or similar to the trademark of “le ucre” that was registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as designated goods, and sold it to Defendant 3, thereby infringing on Nonindicted 1’s trademark right.

2. Defendant 3

The Defendant is a person engaged in the miscellaneous wholesale business in the trade name of △△△ Trade in Daegu-gu ( Address 2 omitted).

(a) Violation of the Copyright Act;

On November 24, 2010, the Defendant purchased from Defendant 2 the same pattern of 15,000 character, which is the copyrighted work of Nonindicted Co. 2, a Japanese non-indicted 2, a copyright holder manufactured in China via the Busan Port, and sold it to Nonindicted Co. 7, etc. around that time, and sold 80,00 in the same shape as the character of “le Sucre” over 10 times until April 18, 2013, thereby infringing on the author’s property right for profit or habitually, by selling 80,000 in the same shape of “lesucre” character to Defendant 1 and non-indicted 7, etc.

B. Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

In around 2004, the Defendant developed the Japanese non-indicted 2 limited liability company’s “le Sucre” character with its copyright, and imported and sold the character’s character from around 2006 to the non-indicted 4 corporation, and entered into a contract with the above non-indicted 2 and non-indicted 4 on the domestic commercialization right with the above non-indicted 2 and the above character with the non-indicted 4 corporation on February 2009 to make it confused with the "non-indicted 100 million won with the same product value" that has been widely known domestically by purchasing, manufacturing, and selling the shape of the "leucre" character with the non-indicted 15,00 won, and selling it to the non-indicted 2, including the non-indicted 7, etc., for sale to the non-indicted 18, 2013.

C. Violation of the Trademark Act

From January 22, 2013 to April 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) purchased all of the above figures from Defendant 2, who imported 14,90 a pattern 14,90 trademark (import price of KRW 63,215,149) on which Nonindicted Party 1 registered the Korean Intellectual Property Office as the designated goods using a pattern, etc. as a trademark of “leucre” or similar form, attached with the trademark of “le sucre”; and (b) sold it to Defendant 1 and other retailers around that time, thereby infringing upon Nonindicted Party 1’s trademark right.

3. Defendant 1

The Defendant is a person who sells figures, etc. with the trade name of “○○ House” in the 2nd floor of Daegu-si, Northern-gu ( Address 3 omitted) B, Dong 1.

(a) Violation of the Copyright Act;

From November 2010 to June 2013, the Defendant ordered goods through the Internet ○○ House site, the portal site, or the open market at the portal site, or sold the personal type reproduced in the same form as that of the Japanese non-indicted 2 limited liability company’s copyrighted work, to customers who come from the above office, thereby infringing on the author’s property right for profit or habitually, by selling the personal type reproduced in the same type as that of the Japanese non-indicted 2 company’s copyrighted work.

B. Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

The Defendant developed the Japanese non-indicted 2 limited liability company's "le sucre" character in around 2004 and had the copyright of the character, and imported and sold "le sucre" character from around 2006 to around February 2009, and entered into a contract on the domestic commercialization right with the above non-indicted 2 limited liability company and the non-indicted 4 corporation for import, manufacture, and sale of "le sure" character widely known domestically by entering into the domestic commercialization right with the above non-indicted 2 limited liability company and the non-indicted 2 corporation and the above character. From November 201, 2010 to June 2013, the Defendant sold the defendant's name Sucre type using the product mark through the defendant's Internet camera and open market office to sell it to the retailers, and made them confused with the "non-indicted 1" character in Korea by advertising as if they were Japanese products.

C. Violation of the Trademark Act

From January 3, 2013 to April 18, 2013, the Defendant sold a 2,854 figure 2,854 trademark on which Nonindicted Party 1 registered the Korean Intellectual Property Office as designated goods using a pattern, etc. as either a trademark of “leucre” or a pattern of a pattern similar to that of “le sucre”, through an open market, such as an open market, and stored in order to sell the above 312 boxes (a approximately 18,000 points).

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 1

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the Defendants in the suspect interrogation protocol

1. Statement of each police and prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 1

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against Defendant 2 in the protocol of each prosecutorial statement;

1. Some of the statements prepared by Defendant 2

1. Each investigation report (Attachment 50 pages of the investigation records of the relevant data, No. 151 attached to the trademark register, etc.; No. 171 attached to the trademark tamp, etc.; No. 173 attached to the contents of the advertisement; No. 212 attached to the records of the suspect Schlage-type storage photograph; No. 267 pages of the customs passage and process verification; No. 915 pages of the submission of reference documents; No. 927; No. 942 of the submission of reference documents; No. 945; No. 949 of the submission of reference documents; No. 1389 of the submission of the documents; No. 1509 of the import records; No. 171 attached to the trademark t tags; No. 2512 attached to the contents of the sales records of the product imported by the domestic product manufacturer; No. 17537; No. 25196, Feb. 19, 2017>

1. Seizure record and list;

1. Each import declaration certificate, each import declaration certificate, Japan's trademark registration certificate, sales advertising output, car delivery certificate, design registration certificate, participation certificate, publicity official photograph, Korea leucre license contract data, Japanese newspaper advertisement, trademark registration certificate, design registration certificate, Schlage Procre transaction certificate, document, each content certificate, certificate, and each import declaration letter, each import declaration document, Scre search data, space ucre search data, trademark registration information output, Korea's online shopping mall advertisement, Korea's online shopping mall sales contract, domestic sales contract concluded on February 1, 2005, the domestic product files concluded on February 13, 2009, the trademark registration certificate, the design registration certificate, the uucre transaction certificate, the document issued by Japan and non-indicted 1, the content certificate, the each content certificate, each of the import declaration letter, the identification number of ○○ and Pucre transactions, the serial number of 25 January 25, 2013, and the serial number of the application form related to the screen.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Each trademark law Article 93 of the Trademark Act, Article 136 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act, Article 18 (3) 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 2 subparagraph 1 and (a) (each choice of imprisonment with labor) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Confiscation;

Defendant 1: Article 97-2 of the Trademark Act, Article 139 of the Copyright Act, and Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Claims concerning violations of the Copyright Act;

A. Defendants’ assertion

Hrerere Sucre type (hereinafter referred to as “the instant mold type”) is a imitated work of another, and it is not of creative nature, and the Defendants’ mold type is not a imitated work of this case, and there is no substantial similarity with the instant mold type.

B. Determination

In order for a work to be protected under the Copyright Act, it shall be a creative production belonging to the scope of literary, scientific or artistic works. As such, creativity is required as a requirement. It does not mean a complete originality, but merely means that a certain work does not simply imitate another work, but includes an original expression of author's own ideas or emotions. In order to meet such requirements, it is sufficient to the extent that the work is given the characteristics of the work as a lawsuit of mental effort as the author's own name and that it can be distinguished from the existing works of other authors (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do446, Oct. 23, 2003, etc.).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., the name of the Defendants purchased using the same shape of the instant mold, and the shape of the Defendant’s 10-year-type online sales, which is hard to see that the Defendants were using the same shape of the instant shape as the Defendant’s 2-year-type online sales, and that the Defendants were using the same shape of the instant shape as the Defendant’s 10-year-type online sales, such as the Plaintiff’s 10-type online sales, and that the Defendants were using the same shape of the instant shape as the Defendant’s 2-year-type online sales, such as the Plaintiff’s 10-type online sales, and that the Defendants were using the same shape of the instant shape as the Defendant’s 2-year-type online sales, and that the Defendants were using the same shape of the instant shape as the Defendant’s 10-year-type online sales, and that the Defendant’s 2-year-type online sales had no different character.

2. Claim concerning unfair competition prevention and violation of the Trade Secret Protection Act;

A. Defendants’ assertion

The shape of this case does not constitute a mark indicating another person's goods or a mark widely known in the Republic of Korea, but does not constitute a mark widely recognized in the Republic of Korea, and there is no possibility of confusion between the Defendants as it is not identical or similar to the shape of the seal.

B. Determination

The meaning of "the mark indicating another person's goods has been widely known in the Republic of Korea" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act does not require that the mark "the mark indicating another person's goods has been widely known in the Republic of Korea" to be widely known to all persons throughout the country's discharge, and is sufficient to the extent known among traders or consumers within a certain area. Whether the mark is widely known is a trademark, etc. shall be the standard for responding to the actual situation of the use period, method, pattern, use, transaction scope, etc., and whether the trademark has been objectively widely known under the social norms and social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6187, May 9, 2012). Meanwhile, in order to become a "mark indicating another person's goods, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, the character itself is insufficient to be widely known in the Republic of Korea.

이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 공소외 1은 2005. 2. 1. 이 사건 토끼 인형 캐릭터인 르 슈크레의 독점상품화권을 가지고 있는 일본의 공소외 4 주식회사와 르 슈크레 캐릭터 상품 판매위탁계약을 체결하였고, 2009. 2. 13. 국내 상품화권 계약을 체결한 후 국내 라이센스사업을 진행하여 ㈜에스케이상사, 공소외 10 회사, 공소외 11 회사, ☆☆걸, ▽▽무역, ◎◎직물, ◁◁텔, 공소외 12 회사, ▷▷▷네, 공소외 13 회사 등과 2009. 5. 1.부터 2013. 6. 1.까지 르 슈크레 라이센스계약을 체결하고 문구용품, 주방용품, 속옷 양말 등 홈웨어, 침구류, 우산, 수영복, 타올, 신발, 악세사리 등을 국내의 홈플러스, 이마트 등 대형마트와 온라인 판매점에서 판매하였던 점, ② 르 슈크레는 2007년경부터 네이버, 다음 등의 인터넷에서 검색되기 시작하여 쇼핑검색사트에 르 슈크레로 검색하면 수천건이 넘는 물품이 등록되어 있고, 공소외 1이 전량 일본에서 수입한 이 사건 토끼 인형은 신세계몰, GS몰, AK백화점 몰, 롯데닷컴, 농협NS홈쇼핑 등 온라인 유통업체와 오프라인의 전국 수백개 취급점에서 거래되고 있으며, 취급점들은 옥션, 11번가, G마켓, 인터파크 등에서 판매하고 있고, TV광고에 소품으로 사용되기도 하였던 점, ③ 2008. 4. 29.자 재경일보, 2010. 4. 5.자 연합뉴스, 2011. 1. 24.자 중앙일보, 2011. 11. 22.자 매일경제 등 기사에 의하면 르 슈크레 캐릭터가 아이들이 좋아하는 캐릭터이고, 모 공기정화제 광고에 나온 뒤 유명해졌다는 내용의 기사를 보도하는 등 르 슈크레 캐릭터는 국내에 널리 알려져 있던 점, ④ 피고인들이 수입·판매한 슈크레 토끼 인형을 구매한 소비자들은 그 인형을 일본에서 판매되는 르 슈크레 토끼 인형을 수입한 것으로 오인하여 구매하였고, 자신들이 구매한 슈크레 토끼 인형이 일본에서 판매되는 르 슈크레 토끼 인형 정품인지를 계속하여 문의하였으며, 인터넷에 슈크레 토끼 인형의 정품과 가품을 구별하는 방법에 관하여 문의를 올리는 등 소비자들 사이에서는 르 슈크레 토끼 인형을 만들어 판매하고 그 권리를 가지고 있는 회사가 구체적으로 어디인지는 알지 못하더라도 일본에서 판매되는 르 슈크레 토끼 인형을 정품이라고 인식하고 있는 점, ⑤ 피고인들은 토끼 인형을 판매하면서 이 사건 토끼 인형에 부착된 택(tag)과 유사한 모양의 택(tag)을 붙여 판매하였고, 그 택(tag)에는 ⓒ△△△△△△CO.LTD라는 저작권자를 표시하는 문구도 동일하게 기재되어 있으며, 일본어로 주의사항을 표시하였고, 택(tag)에 표시된 바코드는 르 슈크레 인형의 종류에 관계없이 전부 (바코드번호 생략)로 되어있는데 그 바코드 번호는 2011. 4. 2. 일본 오리지날플랜트사로부터 판매권을 갖고 있는 공소외 4 주식회사에서 판매한 르 슈크레 상표를 단 양초제품번호인 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 토끼 인형은 국내에 널리 알려진 캐릭터 인형으로서 소비자들은 일본에서 판매되는 이 사건 토끼 인형을 정품으로 인식하고 있다고 할 것이므로 이 사건 토끼 인형은 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호 (가)목 에 규정된 ‘국내에 널리 인식된 타인의 상품임을 표시한 표지’에 해당하고, 피고인들은 이 사건 토끼 인형과 실질적으로 동일·유사한 토끼 인형을 수입·판매하여 상품주체혼동행위를 하였다고 봄이 상당하므로 피고인들의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Claims as to trademark violations

A. Defendants’ assertion

The registered trademark of this case and the shape of the mold used by the Defendants are not similar, and the Defendants did not intend to infringe on trademark rights in light of the developments leading up to the use of the trademark of Schlage d'orge' by the Defendants.

B. Determination

If a trademark identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark is used on goods identical or similar to the designated goods, the act of infringing the right to the registered trademark. Whether it is being used as a trademark should be determined by comprehensively considering the relation with the goods, the mode of using the mark (the location, size, etc. indicated on the goods, etc.), the user’s intent, and the process of using the trademark, etc., and comprehensively as to whether it is actually used as an identification mark of the goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7352, Jan. 27, 2011). Meanwhile, whether it is similar to a trademark should be determined based on whether there is a concern of misconception or confusion in the transaction by observing the compared trademark in terms of its appearance, name, and concept in terms of objective, whole and e.g., the appearance of the trademark at issue, and if there is a concern that general consumers mistake or confusion about the origin of the goods in cases where two trademarks are used on the same or similar goods, the concept of similarity of the trademark should not be determined separately.

이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 공소외 1은 공소외 14, 공소외 15가 2008. 12. 29. 상표출원한 ‘le sucre’ 상표에 관하여 2010. 5. 4. 그 권리를 양수한 후 2013. 1. 3. ‘le sucre’ 도형복합상표( , 이하 ‘이 사건 등록상표’라고 한다)를 지정상품 또는 지정서비스업 제28류(인형 등)로 정하여 상표등록을 하였고, 공소외 1은 상표등록을 함에 있어 자신이 일본으로부터 수입하여 판매하는 이 사건 토끼 인형 모양을 그대로 상표에 포함시키면서 그 아래에 ‘le sucre’라는 문자를 부기하였던 점, ② 이 사건 등록상표에 포함된 토끼 모양 도형은 앞서 본 바와 같이 토끼를 사람 형상으로 표현하면서 둥근 얼굴에 작고 둥근 눈과 작은 눈과는 대비되는 크고 둥근 코, 코 아래에 일자에 가까운 입모양, 귀는 긴 타원형으로 속살 같은 것이 보이는 형태로 되어 있는 등 자연에 존재하는 토끼 모습과는 본질적으로 차이가 있고, 달콤하고 부드러운 느낌을 주며, 아무 표정이 없지만 느긋하고 귀여운 느낌을 주도록 도안한 것으로 이 사건 등록상표에 있어 중요한 부분이라고 볼 수 있는 점, ③ 피고인 2는 2010. 11. 24. 르 슈크레(‘le sucre’) 상표를 부착한 토끼 인형 15,000개를 중국으로부터 수입한 것을 비롯하여, 2012. 6. 4.까지 합계 31,450개를 수입하였고, 르 슈크레(‘le sucre’) 상표를 부착한 토끼 인형이 공소외 1의 저작권 등을 침해하는 것으로 문제가 되자 2012. 10. 4.경부터는 동일한 토끼 인형에 상표를 슈크레 도르지(sucre d‘orge)라고 부착하여 토끼 인형 8,700개를 중국으로부터 수입한 것을 비롯하여 2013. 4. 18.까지 합계 25,600개를 수입·판매하였던 점, ④ 피고인 2가 상표를 슈크레 도르지(sucre d‘orge)로 바꿔 수입하기는 하였으나, 단지 그 상표만이 슈크레 도르지(sucre d‘orge)로 변경되었을 뿐 이 사건 토끼 인형과 동일·유사한 토끼를 그대로 수입하였고, 또한 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 토끼 인형에 부착된 택(tag)과 ⓒ△△△△△△CO.LTD라는 저작권자를 표시하는 문구 등 동일한 내용이 기재되어 있고 그 모양이 유사한 택(tag)을 그대로 붙여 판매하였고, 소비자들도 피고인들이 수입·판매한 토끼 인형을 이 사건 토끼 인형으로 오인하여 구입하였으며, 자신들이 구매한 토끼 인형이 일본에서 판매되는 정품인지를 계속하여 문의하는 등 그 출처에 혼동을 주었던 점, ⑤ 이 사건 등록상표와 슈크레 도르지(sucre d‘orge) 상표는 서로 다른 것이라는 취지의 특허심판원 심결이 있지만, 그 취지는 도형상표인 이 사건 등록상표와 문자상표인 슈크레 도르지(sucre d‘orge)가 서로 다르다는 것일 뿐, 피고인들이 수입·판매한 토끼 인형이 이 사건 토끼 인형을 그대로 도형으로 형상화한 이 사건 등록상표의 토끼 모양 도형과 다르다는 것은 아니었던 점, ⑥ 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 토끼 인형은 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호 (가)목 에 규정된 ‘국내에 널리 인식된 타인의 상품임을 표시한 표지’라고 볼 수 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 토끼 인형을 그대로 도형으로 형상화한 이 사건 등록상표의 도형부분과 동일한 모양의 토끼 인형을 수입·판매하는 것은 소비자들로 하여금 상표의 본질적 기능이라고 할 수 있는 출처를 혼동하게 하는 것으로서 상표권을 침해하는 것이라고 봄이 상당하고, 피고인들이 이 사건 등록상표의 도형부분과 동일한 모양의 토끼 인형을 수입·판매하면서 그 문자부분만을 슈크레 도르지(sucre d‘orge)로 변경하였다고 하여 상표권을 침해한다는 고의가 없었다고 볼 수 없으므로 피고인들의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

Defendant 2 had the history of denying criminal facts while denying the Defendants’ copyright, trademark rights, etc., and Defendant 3 had the history of being sentenced to a suspended sentence due to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, trademark law, etc., and Defendant 3 had the history of being sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Trademark Act. Defendant 3 had the motive, background, method and method of the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the age, character, career, environment, etc. of the Defendants as shown in the arguments of this case, by taking full account of various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character, experience, environment, etc.

Judges Maximum Order