TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15512 Decided March 14, 2013¡¼Violation of the Trademark Act¤ýViolation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] The standard and method for determining similarities between trademarks [2] In a case where Defendant was indicted for violating Victim Gap¡¯s trademark rights by selling or displaying for sale products with a mark of a pattern similar to the figure trademark that Gap had applied for trademark registration, the fact that Defendant¡¯s wife acquired design registration for the pattern which is the mark used by Defendant (hereinafter ¡°Defendant mark¡±) is not obstructive to establishing trademark violation, since the use of Defendant mark constitutes ¡°trademark use¡± [3] In a case where design registration was acquired by false pretense in order to gain profit through confusing average consumers by using a design that is identical or similar to another person¡¯s trademark, whether applying Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act under Article 15(1) of the same Act is precluded (negative) [4] In a case where Defendant was indicted for violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act by selling products with a mark of a pattern similar to the figure trademark that Victim Gap had applied for trademark registration, thereby committing an act which confused Defendant products with Gap¡¯s products or damaged the distinctiveness or reputation of Gap¡¯s trademark, the fact that Defendant and his wife acquired design registration for the individual figures composing Defendant mark is not obstructive to establishing unfair competition against Gap¡¯s trademark through the use of Defendant mark in its entirety

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2010Da101011 Decided March 14, 2013¡¼Wages¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2011Da36848 Decided February 28, 2013 ¡¼Damages¡½