본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울고등법원 2014.12.11 2014나2008460
부정경쟁행위금지 등

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendants shall have the mark indicated in the separate sheet.


1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the entry of "1. Facts recognized" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the instant mark is widely known domestically, it constitutes an act of unfair competition under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act to sell, distribute, import, export, transfer, lease, or exhibit for the purpose of transfer or lease, low-priced products, packaging sites, packing containers, and advertising advertisements using the instant mark.

B. Even if the well-knownness of the instant mark is not recognized, the instant mark constitutes a figure combining English and Korean, and thus constitutes applied art works, and thus, the Defendants’ use, reproduction, manufacture, lease, or distribution of the instant mark constitutes copyright infringement.

C. The Plaintiff is a person who lawfully acquired the right to use the instant mark and copyright from E (hereinafter “E”) in accordance with the instant asset transfer contract, and sought unfair competition acts, prohibition of copyright infringement, and disposal of infringed goods pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and Article 123(1) of the Copyright Act.

3. First of all, we examine the defendants' violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

A. Determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s above claim 1) In a case where the personality of the subject of the goods is changed, such as the transfer of the Plaintiff’s status, where the character of the subject of the goods is changed, the well-knownness of the product mark, in principle, shall be succeeded to the new business owner in a case where all related businesses are transferred together (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do196, May 31, 199