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 1)/ the filing date of the instant registered trademark 1/ the priority claim date/registration number: C/D/ / 2 September 4, 2012 / 3) comprised of designated goods: Switzerland, reflects, sackers, sackers, strings, sweets, sweves, sweves, sweves, sports strings, tank towers, sweves, Cheongbbs, blue, Cheongbros, clothes, rectangulars, sweves, barfs, sweves, sweves and clothes 4): The Defendant:
(b) Composition of a challenged mark 1: Hyd, half-brut, sacker, tank tower, straight-linerts, Titts, sports air-rampers, straws, Cheongbuses, Cheongbrop, scarp, scarp, coaches, swegs, swegs, caps, and clothes 3 users: the Plaintiff;
C. 1) On January 17, 2018, the Defendant filed a petition against the Plaintiff for an affirmative trial to confirm the scope of rights of the instant registered trademark on the grounds that the mark subject to confirmation and the instant registered trademark are identical or similar to the mark subject to confirmation and the designated goods, and thus, the challenged mark falls under the scope of rights of the instant registered trademark. 2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated on the instant case as 2018Da174, and rendered a trial decision on April 12, 2018 on the grounds that the challenged mark falls under the scope of rights of the Defendant’s registered trademark, and thus the challenged mark falls under the scope of rights of the instant registered trademark (hereinafter “instant trial decision”).
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision
A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) The trial decision of this case is unlawful for the following reasons. A) The trial decision of this case is not identical to the mark in which the challenged mark is actually being used, and there is no interest in confirmation.
However, the decision of this case did not dismiss the request for judgment and judged the merits of this case.
B. Since the challenged mark and the instant registered trademark are not similar to the mark, the challenged mark is the trademark of this case.