logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.28 2017나8738
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s service mark right holder is operating a laundry in the name of “D” as the service mark right holder with respect to the following service mark, and is using it in the name of “D” as the Plaintiff’s service mark holder:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant service mark”). - Filing date - registration date - / G designated goods or designated service business: E/Sgding business, floor sub-laping business, carpets and sub-laping business, cleaning business, laundrying business, nitroweg launding business, nitroweg launding and launding business, drac learning business, green line delivery and multi-delivery business, green line washing service, washing machine rental business, laundry business, laundry business for infants, laundry business, laundrying business, laundry business, laundry business:

B. The Defendant’s mark (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendant mark”) 1) operates a laundry in the name of “I” in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, using the following marks for the signboards of the laundry. -Dam-2) The Defendant uses the following marks on the laund operated for the laundry business:

- - sound;

2. The Defendant, which caused the Plaintiff, uses Defendant mark identical or similar to the instant service mark, engaging in laundry business belonging to the designated service business of the instant service mark.

This is an act infringing the Plaintiff’s service mark right, and the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom.

3. Determination

A. Whether the designated service business of this case and the service business of using Defendant mark are similar to the designated service business of this case, and the designated service business of this case and the service business of using Defendant mark are common to laundry business, etc., and thus both marks service business are identical and similar.

(b) In a case where the trademark composed of letters and designs can be separately observed with respect to the similarity of marks, and the trademark consisting of the constituent parts, the consumers and the trader of the constituent parts shall be independent of the trademark in accordance with the method of reporting, referring and interpreting the trademark.

arrow