logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.11.19 2015고단2357
상표법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Seized evidence 1 to 60 shall be confiscated.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who sells visual visibility with the trade name “D” in Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 51-02.

On March 3, 2015, the Defendant sold 146,00,000 won in a fake EPORIO ACR (MM889) visibility (AR 5889), which is equivalent to 580,000 won at the fixed price, to E via the Internet site off-market 11.

The Defendant, including this, from April 12, 2013 to April 15, 2015, from around 15:15 to April 15, 2015, at the above stores, up to 11 Open Market No. 11 (open Market), human-frequency shopping, Lone Star, Gmarket, and Auction sites including “U.S.T.T.T.T.T. 75080, L.T. 75080, L.S., S, and L. EX 901” ( trademark registration No. 0561909), and its inner name: PERGARI(MMI)’s EPRI(MMI)’s sale of fake goods identical with or similar to those of G.M. 11 (M.M. 1: 62515). The Defendant, through the presumption that the remaining sale of fake goods purchased from G.M. 152577, 1977.757

Accordingly, the defendant infringed trademark rights of trademark right holders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Each investigation report (Attachment, such as office photographs and sales sites, attachment of opinions on appraisal of authentic goods and price of authentic goods, attachment of a list of price of authentic goods, attachment of a trademark register, attachment of the on-site photographs and photographs of seized goods, and market price of seized goods);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Article 93 of the relevant Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 93 of the elective Trademark Act;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 97-2(1) of the Trademark Act is the same as the instant crime around 2010.

arrow