logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.18 2015고단4379
상표법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. No person prosecuted shall deliver, sell, forge, imitate, or possess a trademark identical or similar to another person's registered trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods or for the purpose of having another person use such trademark;

From May 2012 to March 2015, the Defendant used the trademark by allowing D’s representative E to manufacture a 104,095 trademark on which the trademark “G (registration number H)” and a cosmetic No. 104,095 trademark “I (registration number J, K, L, and M)” that was transferred to October 7, 2010 by the owner of the trademark right as the owner of the trademark right and registered as the owner of the trademark right on November 10, 2010, as indicated in the list of crimes, and sold at the wholesale store around that time, thereby infringing the trademark right of the owner of the trademark right by selling it.

2. Determination

A. Whether a trademark identical or similar to the infringing trademark is used (1) It is necessary to confirm this part by deeming that a product, such as I chrode, which is not indicated in the supply details submitted in D submitted by the Defendant for filling and delivering cosmetics manufactured on subsidiary materials, such as cosmetics containers offered by the Defendant, has been sold on the Internet.

(2) According to the records, it is recognized that the Defendant’s photograph, etc. of the attached list Nos. 4, 7,10 of the crime committed by the Defendant using the trademark identical or similar to the infringed trademark indicated in the same table is secured.

(3) However, with respect to the foregoing re-products Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 per annum of the annexed crime list, the above delivery details and the statement of D operator N alone used a trademark identical or similar to the trademark infringing upon the above goods in the same list.

There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. (1) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone violates the trademark right of the registered trademark holder when the defendant manufactures and sells re-products Nos. 4, 7,10 in the list of offenses in the attached Form No. 4, 7,10.

arrow