logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.11 2015가합71262
부정경쟁행위 등 중지
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From April 3, 1996, E, the representative director of the Plaintiff, engaged in the business of manufacturing lighting devices, etc. with the trade name “A”, and was established on June 12, 2014 by succeeding the human and physical assets of the above A, thereby engaging in the business of manufacturing and selling lighting devices.

B. F was employed as the vice president on November 1, 2005, and was employed as the vice president after the establishment of the Plaintiff on June 12, 2014, and was employed as the vice president on October 14, 2014, and was appointed as the representative director. On October 16, 2014, F submitted a resignation notice to the Plaintiff Company and retired.

C. Meanwhile, F filed an application for a trademark listed in attached Table 2 of G (hereinafter “instant trademark”) and completed H establishment, and the Defendant used the instant trademark for lighting fixtures and equipment business from October 14, 2014 to the date of its establishment.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence No. 2 (including branch numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings)]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The trademark of this case was designed through consultation with E, F, and I, the president of A around August 2005, and was attached to goods produced and sold by A and the Plaintiff Company from around that time. Thus, the trademark of this case constitutes a well-known trademark widely recognized domestically as a distinctive mark for the products of the Plaintiff Company.

The F registered the trademark of this case with the intention to directly use the trademark of this case without registering the trademark of this case for the purpose of denying A’s trademark registration by precluding the registration of the trademark without the intention to directly use the trademark of this case. The trademark of this case is under Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) (Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016).

arrow