The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around November 2012, the Defendant: (a) around the Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, used the containers and packaging in the same form and color as the design of the design of the I, a traditional native product sold by F, G and H; (b) produced the “J” product using the same mark as G and H; and (c) supplied the said product to the K and other wholesale companies for funeral supplies from around that time to February 2013, the Defendant committed an act of causing confusion with the victim F’s GI product.

2. Determination

A. Article 18(3)1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) provides for criminal punishment for acts falling under “unfair competition” under Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the same Act.

The term "act of unfair competition" means an act of causing confusion with another person's goods by using a mark identical or similar to another person's name, trade name, trademark, container or package of goods, or any other mark indicating another person's goods, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea.

Whether a mark indicating another person's goods has been widely known in the Republic of Korea is based on the period of use, method, pattern, quantity of use, scope of transaction, etc., the actual condition of the transaction of goods, and whether it is objectively known under the social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do7827, Apr. 13, 2006; 2007Do10562, Sept. 11, 2008). Meanwhile, if a type of goods acquires a certain type of goods with the origin display function and is well known, it constitutes "mark indicating another person's goods widely known in the Republic of Korea" as provided in subparagraph 1 (a) of Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and thus, it can be protected under the same Act. For this purpose, compared to other similar goods, the type of goods has unique design features that strongly appeal the sense of consumers.