권리범위확인(상)
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 8, 2018 on the case No. 2017Da3328 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Basic facts
(a) Registered trademark 1) filing date/registration date//registration number: C/D/E 2: 3) Designated goods: An owner of a trademark right, such as a high-type pen, high-scalizing equipment accumulated, bathing bath, cosmeticing, cosmeticing, and human body rained, classified as the category of goods: The plaintiff;
(b) Composition of challenged mark 1: 2) Goods used: The defendant;
C. On October 23, 2017, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s mark subject to confirmation does not belong to the scope of rights of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark because it is not identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark, and filed a request for a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark. 2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated on the instant case as 2017Da3328, and on January 8, 2018, on the ground that the Defendant’s mark subject to confirmation is not similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark and the mark is not similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark, and thus, it does not fall under the scope of rights of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark (hereinafter “instant trial decision”).
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal
2. Determination as to the propriety of the instant trial decision
A. The key issue in the case is that both the registered trademark and the challenged mark are combined with the figure and the letter, and the appearance and name of the figure are similar to those of the figure and they are common in the concept of “unmi,” and this is likely to cause confusion and confusion about the source of the goods by consumers, considering the Defendant’s actual mode of use and the act of inducing confusion about the source of the goods. Thus, the challenged mark is similar to the registered trademark, and it is so argued that the trademark subject to confirmation falls under the scope of its right.
In this regard, the defendant is not similar when the registered trademark and the challenged mark are objectively and objectively observed the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark, and the scope of the right.