등록취소(상)
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 27, 2018 on the case No. 2017Da2388 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Basic facts
(a) The Plaintiff’s registered trademark 1) filing date/registration date//registration number: C/D/E 2) previous : 3) Designated goods: Ginseng powder, Ginseng X-ray, etc. ( drinks and beverages, ginseng X-ray, etc.) for beverage products classified in Category 32;
B. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial against the Plaintiff for revocation of the trademark registration on the grounds that “the instant registered trademark was not used in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years before the filing date of the petition for a trial as to the portion of ginseng for drinking, ginseng liquor, and beverage EXS (hereinafter “designated goods subject to revocation”) among the designated goods.” 2) On June 27, 2018, the Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a trial against the Plaintiff for revocation of the trademark registration on the ground that it was not used in the Republic of Korea without justifiable reasons.
) The Plaintiff rendered a trial decision revoking the registration of the instant registered trademark (hereinafter “instant trial decision”) on the ground that the difference in color and text parts are difficult to view that the instant registered trademark constitutes a trademark that can be seen the same in light of the general sense of the trade society, and otherwise, the Plaintiff did not prove the fact that the instant registered trademark was properly used on the designated goods subject to revocation, or that the Plaintiff did not prove any justifiable reason for not using the registered trademark.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination as to the propriety of the instant trial decision
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff sold the trademark in actual use on the “F” product, which is the designated product subject to the revocation of the instant case.
The trademark actually used includes not only the instant registered trademark, but also words such as “G” or “G”, which is the Plaintiff’s trade name. However, the instant registered trademark is distinguishable from its text and is used as it is without maintaining its identity and independence.
Therefore, this is applicable.