1. The defendant shall indicate marks listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on the products listed in the separate sheet No. 2 or their packaging, and shall attach No. 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a trademark right holder of the registered trademark as follows (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant trademark”).

1) A trademark: The trademark: (a) on the filing date of three Riba / the registration date / registration number on February 19, 199; (b) on the designated goods of No. 046319 on January 19, 200: No. 5 - The trademarks indicated in paragraph (1) above are different from the color of letters (green; (c) on the basis of salt medication, circular agents, non-pine medication, biological agents, fire extinguishing agents, antibiotic agents, respiratory agents, pulmonary medicine agents, raw medicine agents, double-compony agents; (d) trademarks of those listed in paragraph (1) above:

B. Around July 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Lao Korea Co., Ltd. for exclusive sales of “cellacule” which is a compulsory immunity, and sells the instant product using the marks Nos. 1 and 2.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 to 5-2, 13, and 14-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to whether a trademark right has been infringed

A. Whether a trademark is similar should be determined depending on whether there is a risk of misconception or confusion as to the source of goods in trade in any one aspect on the basis of the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with respect to the trademark when observing the concept of appearance, name, etc. of two trademarks used for the same or similar goods.

Therefore, even if there are different parts of the concept of external name, if it is similar to the name or concept, and it is likely for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse the source of goods, it shall be deemed as a similar trademark.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Hu808 Decided September 12, 2013, etc.).