1. Case Overview
a. Party Represented by Barun Law:
Barun Law represented the Plaintiff, a corporation operating a sullungtang (ox bone soup) specialty restaurant.

b. Background of the case:
Since 1991, the Plaintiff has operated a sullungtang specialty restaurant in Yangpyeong-gun, Gyeonggi-do, using the trade name "A." This trade name is well known among traders and consumers in Yangpyeong. Meanwhile, the Defendant has been operating a sullungtang restaurant under the trade name "Yangpyeong A" in Gangseong-myeon, Yangpyeong-gun, since 2017. Notably, the Plaintiff's trade name "A" is not a registered trademark, while the Defendant's trade name "Gangseong A" is a registered trademark.

2. Judgment and Legal Basis (Suwon District Court Decision 2023Gahap11180, dated November 20, 2024)
In a preliminary injunction proceeding preceding the main case, we argued fiercely on key points such as:
- The notoriety of the trade name "A";
- The similarity between the Defendant's trade name and the Plaintiff's trade name;
- Whether the Defendant's actions constituted unfair competition; and
- The necessity of injunctive relief.
As a result, the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Defendant from using their trade name due to unfair competition.

Following the injunction, the Defendant changed its business name. However, in the main lawsuit, the dispute focused on whether the Defendant's acts before the name change constituted unfair competition and the scope of damages resulting from such acts.

The court awarded a substantial amount of damages, exceeding 6% of the Defendant's estimated net profits.

3. Our Argument and Role
The Defendant asserted:
The Plaintiff had given implicit consent for the use of its trade name;
The trade names were dissimilar; and
The Defendant, as a trademark owner, was merely using its registered trademark.
We countered these claims by leveraging legal theory relating to the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and various forms of evidence to refute all the Defendant's arguments. We also utilized a tax information submission order to obtain the Defendant's revenue, net profit, and operating profit rate statistics, forming the basis for the damages claim.

4. Significance of the Judgment
This ruling reaffirms that even without owning a registered trademark, a party with a well-known trade name can prohibit the use of a similar trade name under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act and claim damages resulting from such acts of unfair competition. This case underscores the legal protections available to holders of well-known but unregistered trade names.