A CEO of a company who was handed over to trial for manufacturing and selling 'Pongyya', which is reminiscent of the famous snack 'Pongiyo', was sentenced to prison.
The court ruled that "the crime was committed with intent to imitate, and direct and indirect damage is likely to be substantial in light of the awareness of the damaged product."
The 1st Criminal Division of the Uijeongbu District Court (Chief Judge Lee Hyun-kyung) broke the original court and sentenced him to 8 months in prison and 2 years of probation in the appeal against Mr. The sentencing was announced today (28th).
The lower court sentenced B to 10 months in prison and two years of probation and ordered 80 hours of community service.
Company A was also sentenced to a fine of 15 million won in the lower court, but was reduced to 12 million won in the appeals court.
According to the court, Mr. B manufactured a total of 63 million won worth of products, including 'Honey Pong' and 'Cheese Pong', at Company A, which he runs, and exported them to Vietnam in April and May 2019.
I even put the word 'sweet' in front of 'It's Honey Pong'.
Both products are similar to Seoul Food Industry's 'Honey Pong' and 'Pong Pong Cheese'.
Seoul Food Industry has been producing and selling 'Pungiyo' since 1982, and has also completed trademark registration.
Since then, they have introduced a variety of flavors and have become popular, with annual sales reaching 10 billion won.
A Vietnamese company asked Mr. B to make confectionery using wrapping paper that is about 95% similar to 'Pungiyo', and Mr. B manufactured and exported 'Pongiyo' as requested.
Seoul Food Industry filed an investigation with the Trade Commission of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy and was judged to be 'unfair trade practices that infringed on trademark rights'.
In the end, Company A and Company B were handed over to trial on charges of violating the Trademark Act, and the first trial, the Goyang Branch of the Uijeongbu District Court, sentenced Company A and Company B to fines and imprisonment, respectively, in April last year.
However, Company A and Mr. B appealed against the verdict on the grounds of misunderstanding of the law and unfair sentencing, and some of them were acknowledged in the weighting of sentencing, and their sentences were somewhat reduced.
The court of appeals judged, "The defendant committed the crime with intent to imitate the damaged product," and said, "The victim company is likely to suffer significant direct and indirect damage in light of the product's awareness and sales volume."
"However, after receiving an objection from the victim company, the defendant stopped infringing on trademark rights, discarded the packaging paper and the printed copper plate, and paid a fine according to the Trade Commission's decision," he added.
(Photo = Yonhap News/Seoul Food Industry website capture, provided by the Trade Committee of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy)