권리범위확인(상)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
(a) The filing date of the instant registered trademark 1)/ the registration date/trademark registration number: B/ C/D2: 3) Designated goods: The owner of the instant trademark right: The Plaintiff (E through November 14, 2013, and thereafter registered) (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff on November 14, 2013)
(b) Goods using the challenged mark 1: 2) Goods: Defendant;
C. On January 28, 2013, Nonparty 1 filed a petition for a trial to confirm the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark (Article 51(1)1, 2, and 3 of the Trademark Act, asserting that “the challenged mark subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark because it falls under Article 51(1)2, and 3 of the Trademark Act.” On August 6, 2013, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision to accept the petition for a trial on the ground that “the challenged mark subject to confirmation does not fall under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark because it falls under Article 51(1)2 and 3” (hereinafter “original trial decision”).
(2) On September 5, 2013, E filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the decision of the lower court (No. 2013Heo7403) with this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Hu7403, Feb. 26, 2014). On May 23, 2014, this court rendered a judgment revoking the original decision on the ground that “Cisung did not have any interest or interest in seeking confirmation of the scope of rights because it did not use the challenged mark for the designated goods, or there was no intention to use it for the designated goods, and thus, there was no interest or interest in seeking confirmation of the scope of rights.” The said judgment became final and conclusive at that time.
3) As such, the revocation judgment of the lower court became final and conclusive, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board re-examineed the case for adjudication on the confirmation of the scope of rights as 2014.
The defendant applied for intervention as an interested party on August 8, 2014 and on October 13, 2014.