등록취소(상)
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 1, 2016 on a case No. 2015Da3725 is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) filed against the Plaintiff on June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff registered the Plaintiff’s service mark C/C (hereinafter “instant registered service mark”) under the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2015Da3725.
The former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same applies) is not used in the Republic of Korea for three or more consecutive years before the date of a request for a trial.
(2) On July 1, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial seeking the revocation of the registration of the instant registered service mark on the ground that “The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone used the instant registered service mark in the designated service business within three years before the date of the instant request for a trial, or there is no justifiable reason for not using the registered service mark. Therefore, the registered service mark of this case should be revoked as it falls under Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act.”
B. Plaintiff’s registration number/application date/registration date of the instant registered service mark: Medical machinery, equipment leasing business, medical assistance business, medical counsel business, medical consultation business, X-ray leasing business for medical treatment, medical information provision business, pharmaceutical information provision business, pharmaceutical information provision business, nursing, health care business, health examination business, thropical correction business, physical therapy business, remote medical treatment service business, remote medical care service business, hospital, hospital, medical clinic, pathology service business, sexual surgery business, 【founded basis for recognition of the designated service business” under Chapter 44, which is classified into the designated service business, without dispute over the following facts: Gap, 17, and 18 evidence; and the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful
A. The use of the registered service mark of this case, where search advertisement was designated as a search language, as the mark “Stockholm” constitutes the use of the instant registered service mark.