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

A. On April 29, 2008, the Plaintiff has been holding the domain name of “www.tw.co.kr” (hereinafter “the domain name of this case”) since its registration.

B. On March 2006, the non-party, etc., who is the U.S., created the twitter service, which is a social network service (SNS; hereinafter “SNS”), including Blocian’s twitter, and provided the service from around 2006 (hereinafter “twitter” in English). The twitter service allows its users to shortly wish to do so using the mobile phone, etc. on the website.

C. The Defendant established around April 2007 and started the TWter service. On October 26, 2007, the Defendant applied for the registration of a service mark with respect to “TWITER” on which the TWter service was indicated as the main text, and obtained registration of the service mark on February 13, 2009, on which the designated service business was applied to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for the real-time dialogue between computers, portable computers, wire and wireless equipment, and users, etc.

D. On April 2, 2013, the Defendant filed an application with the Internet Address Dispute Resolution Committee for dispute resolution on the domain name of this case. On July 17, 2013, Internet Address Dispute Resolution Committee decided to cancel the registration of the domain name of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s registration and possession of the domain name of this case constituted “a person with a legitimate title” as stipulated in the Internet Address Resources Act (hereinafter “Internet Address Resources Act”). The Plaintiff’s registration and possession of the domain name of this case were for the purpose of hindering the Defendant from registering his/her mark as his/her Internet address address or obtaining unjust benefits, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a legitimate right or interest in the registration or use of the domain name of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The plaintiff (1) completed the service mark registration in the Republic of Korea, and provides twitter service in Korean language through the wwwter.com website. The plaintiff does not constitute a case where the registration and use of the domain name is not guaranteed due to the domain name of this case using the service mark right called "TWITER" and the defendant's right to use the domain name of this case and there is no need for direct relation and protection between the defendant's domain name and the defendant's right to use the domain name of this case. Thus, the defendant cannot be viewed as a "person with legitimate title" as stipulated in Article 12 (1) of the Internet Address Resources Act. (2) The plaintiff uses the domain name of this case as the web site of "Tweter tour", which is the Internet travel business, and there is no economic relation between the defendant's service business and the defendant's service business and the defendant's service business, and the plaintiff's service site of this case can not be seen as the "Twitter" as the defendant's right to use the domain name of this case.

B. Determination

1) As to whether the Defendant constitutes “justifiable title holder”

If an applicant for cancellation or transfer of a domain name intends to have “justifiable title” under Article 12(1) of the Internet Address Resources Act, there is a close relation between the domain name and the domain name as the name, trade name, trademark, service mark, and other marks (hereinafter “subject mark”) identical or similar to the domain name and another person has already been registered or used for a considerable period of time in the Republic of Korea or abroad before registering the domain name. On the other hand, there is a circumstance that the cancellation or transfer of the domain name without payment of the price is directly related to the point that it is deemed reasonable in light of the concept of justice, and there is sufficient need to protect the domain name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da57661, Sept. 12, 2013).

In light of the above facts and the facts acknowledged as above, the defendant's 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 8 to 24, the following circumstances have been provided from around 206, namely, ① 500 Twitter services (referred to as "twitter services"), 300,000 tweets per day during 208, and 35 million tweets per day during 209, and 65 million tweets on August 2010, the defendant's 2000 tweets and 20,000 tweets of the defendant's tweet services that are used directly by the defendant's Internet address and 24,000 tweet domain services, and the defendant's 2,500,000 tweet domain services that are used directly by the defendant's 2,011.

2) As to whether there exists “unlawful purpose” for the Plaintiff

Whether there exists "illegal purposes" under Article 12 of the Internet Address Resources Act for this person who has registered, possessed, or used a domain name, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of perception or creativity of the mark subject to a legitimate title, degree of the same or similar nature of the mark subject to a domain name, whether the person who has registered, possessed, or used the domain name knows the subject mark, whether there exists any history of obtaining economic benefits by selling or lending the domain name, whether there exists a web site in the name of the domain name, whether there is actual operation of the web site and its web site, whether there is the same or similar economic relation between the goods or service business, etc. on the web site and the goods or service business, etc. on which the subject mark is used, whether the Internet users are induced to the web site due to the credit in the subject mark and customer attraction manpower, and other circumstances surrounding the registration, possession, or use of the domain name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da64836, Apr. 26, 2013).

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8-1 through 24, 9, 10-1 through 6, and 11 through 13, the whole purport of the arguments in Korea is as follows: from around 2007, before the plaintiff registered the domain name of this case, the Internet web site registered with the domain name of this case is viewed as the Internet travel business website; however, there is no notice as well as the business registration number, the communications sales report number, and any contact is not possible, and the travel goods posted are merely copied the images of other companies (the web site before the opening of the web site), and the number of copies of the domain name at the time of search of the domain name of this case from July 2, 2009 to the 3181, 300, 3810, 381, 300, 300, 300, 300, 30, 30, 30, 300.

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., the following circumstances: ① prior to the Plaintiff’s registration of the domain name of this case, the term “twitter” is widely known worldwide as the Defendant’s SNS; ② the Plaintiff’s domain name of this case, the general maximum domain name of the Defendant’s registration, and the service marks registered in the Republic of Korea are the same as Twitter; ③ the Plaintiff appears to have already known about the Twitter services at the time of the registration of the domain name of this case; ④ the Plaintiff was not engaged in the Internet travel business until now after the registration of the domain name of this case; ④ there was no circumstance in preparation for the operation of the Internet travel business; ⑤ although some search results of the portal site of this case did not indicate the domain name of this case, it appears that the results of search of the portal site of this case would also be exposed if it is acknowledged that there is a high possibility that the Plaintiff could mislead the Plaintiff as the Internet address address user of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is a person with a legitimate title stipulated in Article 12 (1) of the Internet Address Resources Act, and the plaintiff registers and holds the domain name of this case for illegal purposes. Thus, the defendant has the right to request the plaintiff to cancel the registration of the domain name of this case pursuant to Article 12 (2) of the same Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of the absence of the right to cancel the registration against the plaintiff as to the domain name of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed as per Disposition.

A judge who franks the mobilization of force (Presiding Judge)