logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2019.01.24 2018허6801
등록무효(상)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) The Plaintiff’s registered trademark, service mark (except for dental treatment), (1) filing date and registration number: C/D/E (2): Designated goods/designated service mark of the instant case: C/D/E (3): - Classification of the product type 10 studs, studs, studs, external surgery, extra-medical appliances, artificial insertions, artificial injections, medical injections, medical injections, first-time injections, first-time injections, injections, injections, injectings, skins, skin injections - Service type classification - Medical appliances [excluding dental treatment] wholesale business, medical appliances [excluding dental treatment retail business], medical appliances [excluding dental treatment business] brokerage business, medical appliances [excluding dental treatment brokerage business], retail business], medical appliances [excluding dental appliances for sale and retail business], online sales intermediary business, medical appliances for use, medical appliances and appliances for use in the type of medical treatment, spile-type retail business], medical appliances and appliances for use in the type of 35 categories of service business;

(b) A registered service mark (No. 2; hereinafter referred to as “prior registered service mark 1”) (1)/registration date/registration number: F/ G/H (2): The mark: (3) designated goods/designated service: as shown in [Attachment 1].

(4) Person entitled to registration: I

(c) Prior registered service marks (No. 3; hereinafter referred to as “prior registered service marks”) (1) filing date/registration date/registration number: F/ G/J (2): Designated service marks: (3) designated service: as shown in [Attachment 2].

(4) Person entitled to registration: I

D. (1) On May 3, 2018, the Defendant fell under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) because the trademark of this case and its marks and designated goods/designated services are identical or similar to the Plaintiff, who is the right holder of the instant registered trademark, to the Intellectual Property Tribunal.

arrow