1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 19, 2014 on the case No. 2013 Won7011 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Basic facts
A. The filing date of the instant trademark 1)/ the filing date/the filing date/ the application number of the instant trademark: (3) the designated goods consisting of solid surface materials/combined materials/refricks/refricks, and polyvinylvinyl chloride, which serves as the basis for the manufacturing process of double-type products: The applicant: the applicant: (i) the applicant; (ii) the applicant: the applicant; (iii) the applicant: the applicant: the applicant;
B. 1) On April 5, 2013, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, upon the Plaintiff’s application for the trademark of this case, submitted an opinion that the trademark of this case has distinctiveness because ordinary consumers or traders have no concept related to the designated goods, and the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, on April 5, 2013, submitted an opinion to the effect that “the trademark of this case” has distinctiveness because the meaning of “the trademark of this case,” indicating the nature of the designated goods (use, shape, etc.) and cannot be identified if it is used on the designated goods, since it is a single molecular floor or a single Subdivision, and it is not possible for consumers to distinguish whether the trademark of this case is a trademark related to their business.” On August 30, 2013, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, on the ground that the meaning of the trademark of this case was derived from the surface of the body, etc., and thus, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office did not obtain the trademark registration under Article 6(1)36(1) of the Trademark Act.
3. On September 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial seeking the revocation of the foregoing decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2013 Won7011. On September 19, 2014, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered that the trademark applied for trademark in this case is classified into a film consisting of a single or a single single-story group with ordinary consumers or traders, and Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act is subject to Article 3