[등록취소(상)][집49(2)특,434;공2001.11.15.(142),2386]
Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act
Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 535 of Aug. 2, 197) was deleted by Act No. 535 of Aug. 2, 1997, and Article 1 of the Addenda of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 535 of Aug. 22, 1997) No. 5 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 575 of Aug. 1, 1998) No. 9 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 541 of Feb. 3, 2001) was amended by Act No. 575 of Aug. 3, 200). This provision applies to an application for cancellation of trademark registration under Article 9 (2) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 535 of Aug. 22, 201).
Article 73(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997); Articles 1, 3, and 3 (amended by Act No. 6414 of Feb. 3, 2001) of the Addenda of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 535 of Aug. 22, 1997); Article 73(4) of the Addenda of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 6414 of Feb. 3, 2001)
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Cho Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant
Patent Court Decision 99Heo491 delivered on November 19, 1999
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 535 of Aug. 22, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "former Trademark Act") provides that where an owner of a trademark right allows another person to use a trademark identical or similar to his/her own registered trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods for not less than six months without registering the establishment of an exclusive or non-exclusive license, the court below decided that Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 535 of Aug. 22, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "former Trademark Act") was deleted, but Article 1 of the Addenda of the former Trademark Act provides that since Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Mar. 1, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "former Trademark Act") provides that the trademark of this case shall be revoked by the former Trademark Act No. 1, 1997, which had been registered on July 19, 198.
However, Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act was deleted by the former Trademark Act amended by Act No. 535 of Aug. 22, 1997. Article 1 of the Addenda of the former Trademark Act provides that an application for trademark registration prior to the enforcement of this Act, an application for trademark registration renewal registration and an application for registration additional registration of designated goods shall be governed by the former Trademark Act. Article 3 of the Addenda of the former Trademark Act (see Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act, which is the date of enforcement of the Trademark Act, is amended by Act No. 6414, Feb. 3, 2001; Article 3 of the former Trademark Act, which is the date of enforcement of the trademark registration Act; Article 1 of the Addenda of the former Trademark Act, which is the date of enforcement of the trademark registration Act; Article 1 of the former Trademark Act, which is the date of enforcement of the trademark registration Act, shall be amended by Act No. 1065, Mar. 1, 1998.
Nevertheless, the court below's revocation of the registration of the trademark of this case on the ground of Article 73 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act is therefore erroneous in violation of Article 3 of the Addenda of the amended Trademark Act and Article 4 of the Addenda of the amended Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 6414 of Feb. 3, 2001). Thus, the appeal pointing this out has
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)