상표권 존속기간갱신등록신청 반려처분취소의 소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Gold Water Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “gold Water Industry”) established a trademark right (registration number: D) in the trademark office “C”
(hereinafter “instant trademark right”). The gold and crude acid was deemed to have been liquidated in accordance with Article 520-2(4) of the Commercial Act on December 3, 2010 and the registration of the completion of liquidation was completed on December 6, 2010.
On February 24, 2012, the Defendant cancelled the trademark right of this case ex officio pursuant to Article 64(2) of the Trademark Act and Article 14(1)1 of the Decree on the Registration of Patents, etc. on the ground that “The registration of the completion of liquidation was completed on December 6, 2010.”
B. On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to register the renewal of the duration of the trademark right of this case from the gold and water delivery, and submitted to the Defendant a written application for the renewal of duration of the trademark right of this case on behalf of the gold and water delivery
On September 23, 2013, the Defendant rejected the written application for the renewal registration of the term of registration for the establishment of a gold delivery on the ground that “the gold delivery, which is the owner of the trademark right of this case, was completed on December 6, 2010, and did not make the registration of transfer as to the trademark of this case until June 6, 201, and the trademark of this case was cancelled on December 7, 2010 pursuant to Article 64(2) of the Trademark Act, and thus the trademark of this case is not subject to the application for the renewal registration for the term of registration for the renewal of the term of
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Ground for recognition] without dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 1, Gap’s evidence No. 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to Article 56(1)1 of the Trademark Act, the defendant's judgment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case is that the transfer of trademark rights takes effect, and the transfer of trademark rights takes effect, and the plaintiff merely received an order to transfer the trademark of this case from the court and did not transfer the trademark of this case under the name of the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff is not recognized as standing to sue because there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation