|Subject｜||[Trademark] Patent Court Decision, 2016Na1691 decided June 29, 2017|
Patent Court Decision, 2016Na1691 decided June 29, 2017 (Outback Case)
Each of the business marks of this case is a domestically well-known business mark of the plaintiff and has acquired reputation and has strong distinctiveness. Furthermore, each of the infringing marks of this case is identical and similar to each business mark of this case, and the defendants who are copiers are assumed to have intentional bad faith. However, considering that the evidence presented alone does not prove that there is a relationship between both services in terms of business competition and contention by the duplication of a customer base, that the plaintiff's business size is incomparably larger than the defendants' business size, and that the plaintiff has maintained reputation and credence as a "family-centered and nature-friendly family restaurant" with a strong reputation among consumers, it is very unlikely that ordinary consumers or traders would be confused such that automated accommodation having a negative image is believed to be run by the plaintiff directly or by an individual or a legal entity having an intimate relationship with the capital or organization of the plaintiff.
However, it is determined that the defendants have damaged the good image and value of the mark by using the plaintiff's well-known business mark of this case for services having a negative image, and also have damaged a source indication function of the well-known business mark of this case.
Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to a claim for injunction under Article 4 of the "Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act "(hereinafter, referred to as the "Unfair Competition Prevention Act") and a claim for damages under Article 5 of the same act, against the defendants.
|Next｜||[Trademark] Patent Court Decision, 2017Heo919...|