beta
(영문) 특허법원 2015.04.10 2014허8380

등록취소(상)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: C/D/B 2: 3) Designated goods: A trademark right holder of attached Form 4: Plaintiff

(b) Composition 1 of the trademarks in actual use: (1) goods in actual use (1) and (2) goods in actual use 2): The end of each period;

(c) Composition of the subject trademarks: (1) Designated goods: (No. 41070 of the trademark registration, No. 1 of the subject trademark), (No. 76400 of the trademark registration, No. 2 of the subject trademark): The quantity of the Class 25 of the goods;

D. 1) On August 22, 2013, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for the revocation of registration against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the registered trademark of this case should be revoked because it falls under Article 73(1)8 of the Trademark Act.” (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant petition for adjudication on October 20, 2014 on the ground that “E and F, a non-exclusive licensee of the registered trademark of this case, use the trademarks similar to the instant registered trademark at the end, which are goods identical to the designated goods of the instant registered trademark, in relation to the source of goods.” Since there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff, a trademark holder, performed his/her duty of supervision over the illegal use of the trademark of this case, the registered trademark of this case, constitutes Article 73(1)8 of the Trademark Act, and thus the registration should be revoked.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. As long as the original high-use trademarks were used at both ends, only the part concerning the designated goods identical or similar to both ends of the instant registered trademark shall be deemed to have a ground for revocation under Article 73(1)8 of the Trademark Act.

또한, 원고는 이 사건 심결 이후인 2014. 11. 18. 이 사건 등록상표의 지정상품 중 양말과 동일유사한 청구취지 기재의「양말, 각반(脚絆 , 남성양말,...