logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.01.17 2016노2663
상표법위반등
Text

The judgment below

The part of the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act is reversed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence related to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), the facts charged in the instant case are fully found guilty, but the court below acquitted the Defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case shall not infringe another person's trademark right by using a trademark identical or similar to another person's registered trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods, and shall not infringe another person's trademark right by using a trademark identical or similar to another person's name, trade name, trademark, or any other mark widely known in Korea as the goods of another person, or by selling, distributing, importing, or exporting goods using such mark to cause confusion with another person

Nevertheless, around November 11, 2005, the Defendant registered the individual entrepreneur with the name of “D”, the same as the victim D Co., Ltd. widely known in the Republic of Korea, and opened an Internet website (E) until March 5, 2015, and advertised and sold the Internet site and offline the victim D Co., Ltd. by stealing the “D” trademark registered as G with the F Korean Intellectual Property Office, and indicating the “D”, “D”, “H”, “H” and “H”.

Accordingly, the defendant used the same trademark as another person's registered trademark, and committed an unfair competition act that causes confusion by using another person's trademark widely known in Korea.

B. The lower court acquitted all of the charges of this case on the following grounds.

1) The fact that the Defendant violated the Trademark Act is either identical or similar to D’s trademark, which is the trademark of D Co., Ltd., a complainant, and sold “brushes, frus, and oxygen supply equipment.”

arrow