Gunsan Legal Consultation | Daeryun Gunsan Legal Consultation Achieves Provisional Attachment of Real Estate for a Claim of 100 Million Won

The client who came to Daeryun for a Gunsan legal consultation operated a clothing wholesale and retail business located in Gunsan that also had locations in home shopping channels and department stores.

In 2015, the client completed business registration for the brand of that business and, through an application for registration, obtained a decision granting trademark registration, and has been operating the business.

A few months ago, the client was contacted by the defendant regarding the supply of nail tip goods.

It was a business proposal to sell the nail tips manufactured by the defendant's company under the client's trademark.

Accordingly, the client entered into an OEM goods supply contract under which the nail tip business would be conducted under the client's brand, and the defendant, as the manufacturer, would manufacture and supply the nail tip products ordered by the client.

However, while supplying goods under the contract with the client, the defendant applied to register a trademark that was substantially identical to the client's brand, differing only in font.

At the same time, the defendant stopped delivering nail tips to the client and manufactured and sold products that misappropriated the client's trademark, infringing the client's trademark right and taking economic benefit.

Accordingly, the client decided, through the Gunsan legal consultation, to bring a claim for damages for trademark infringement.

■ Claim for Damages Under the Trademark Act

- Trademark Act Article 109: A trademark right holder or an exclusive licensee may claim from a person who has infringed the trademark right or exclusive license intentionally or by negligence compensation for the harm sustained as a result of the infringement.

- Trademark Act Article 111: Instead of claiming damages against the infringer, the holder may claim, as the amount of harm, a reasonable amount within the range of 100 million won (300 million won in the case of intentional infringement). In this case, the court may recognize a reasonable amount of harm in light of the overall purport of the oral argument and the results of the examination of evidence.

- Trademark Act Article 112: A person who has infringed the trademark right or exclusive license of another that is marked as a registered trademark under Article 222 is presumed to have known that the trademark was already registered with respect to that infringing act.

■ Supreme Court Precedent (Judgment of July 25, 2013, 2013Da21666)

- A person who has infringed another's trademark right is presumed to have been negligent with respect to the infringing act, and in order to establish that such a person was not negligent, that person must assert and prove that there were circumstances justifying the failure to know of the existence of the trademark right, or circumstances justifying the belief that the trademark the person was using did not fall within the scope of rights of the registered trademark.

Through the Gunsan legal consultation, the Daeryun attorney specializing in the area argued that the defendant was infringing the client's trademark right by manufacturing and selling products that misappropriated the client's trademark.

In fact, the defendant was selling products that even misappropriated images such as the detail pages and pouch packaging that the client had used.

Through the Gunsan legal consultation, Daeryun established that the defendant had intentionally approached the client in order to commit the trademark infringement and carry out the sales.

In fact, the defendant and the client did not know each other, yet the defendant first proposed the goods supply contract and then proceeded with the trademark application.

The firm argued that, in light of the circumstances in which the defendant applied to register the trademark by misappropriating the client's trademark immediately after the contract was concluded, it appears highly likely that the defendant proposed the contract to the client with the intent to infringe the trademark from the outset.

The client who came to Daeryun for a Gunsan legal consultation was in a situation that required the assistance of an attorney specializing in the area in order to bring a claim for damages for trademark infringement.

In the case of a claim for damages for trademark infringement, because the recognition of the trademark infringement and the resulting harm must be submitted as legal evidence, it is very difficult for an individual to prepare.

The law firm Daeryun has numerous attorneys specializing in the area with expertise in intellectual property rights.

Through the law firm Daeryun Gunsan legal consultation, work with experienced professionals to pursue civil, criminal, and administrative liability and to assert your rightful entitlements.