logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.06.14 2012고정6234
상표법위반등
Text

The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

Reasons

1. The Defendant in the facts charged is a person who sells a new brand, clothes, hats, etc. of a well-known brand, such as the name, age, height, etc. of “E” from approximately 51 square meters in Busan Jung-gu D-gu, Busan, about 10 square meters in size.

An act of causing confusion with another person's business facilities or activities by using any one identical or similar to another person's name, trade name, or emblem, or any other mark indicating another person's business, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea, and shall not infringe on another person's exclusive license for a service mark.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the above E store from December 2008 to July 18, 2012, had already been widely recognized in the Republic of Korea, and the U.S. “NIK” mark (No. 01798, No. 001799, hereinafter “instant service mark”) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as a designated service business for sales agency, such as sports clothes and sports agents, etc., is the sales store of the instant case (hereinafter “instant sales store”) without the consent of the owner of the right to use the service mark and exclusive licensee, without the consent of the Baki Korea Limited Liability (hereinafter “instant sales store”).

() The act of engaging in an act of unfair competition that may cause confusion with the business facilities or activities of the person holding the right to use the service mark, and at the same time infringing on the exclusive license of the above exclusive licensee as to the above service mark by causing mistake as being related to the business of the person holding the right to use the service mark, by engaging in an act of selling age, shoes, and clothing products, etc. using two signboards (which are installed on the wall side of the store as a business mark on the F photograph) at the entrance of the entrance

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the instant service mark is indicated in the facts charged as the person who runs the instant store, a franchise store that sells genuine goods imported in parallel with a trademark overseas, such as “Naki,” “adid,” and “Lido,” etc.

arrow