logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2012.11.07 2012노1512
상표법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles cannot be deemed as similar to the registered trademark of a product sold or kept by the defendant, and the court below erred by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, community service, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion of facts must be made on the basis of whether there is a concern for ordinary consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods in the transaction of the designated goods by observing the two trademarks used for the same kind of goods objectively, comprehensively, as a whole, the external appearance, name, and concept, etc., and on the basis of the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel the trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4614, Sept. 24, 2009). 2) Examining the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the above legal principles and evidence, if the trademark indicated on goods sold and stored by the defendant was used in the goods identical or similar to the designated goods, the act of infringing the registered trademark right. The similarity of the trademark is similar to the registered trademark, and the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. Although it is presumed that the gains actually earned by the defendant on the assertion of unfair sentencing are not many, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is superior to the defense that reduces liability rather than reflects his/her own fault in depth, the defendant has three times fines due to the violation of the Trademark Act, the amount of goods sold and stored by the defendant is reasonable, and further infringes on the trademark rights of many and unspecified consumers using the Internet.

arrow