beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
A. Article 73(1)2 of the Trademark Act provides that a trademark right holder may revoke trademark registration in cases where the trademark right holder intentionally uses a trademark similar to the registered trademark on the designated goods, or uses the registered trademark or similar trademark on goods similar to the designated goods, thereby misleading consumers as to the quality of goods or confused with goods related to another person’s business, by regulating that the trademark right holder shall not use his/her registered trademark in excess of the scope of license, contrary to the original purpose of the trademark system, thereby promoting the safety of trade in goods, and by preventing the act of taking advantage of the credit or reputation of another person’s trademark, and thereby protecting not only the interests of the trader and consumer, but also the
Therefore, as a trademark actually used (hereinafter “actually used trademark”) is modified to view the registered trademark as identical or similar to another person’s trademark (hereinafter “subject trademark”), if the use of the trademark is more likely to mislead consumers as to the source of goods than the case where the registered trademark is used as it is in relation to the subject trademark, it may be deemed that the use of the actually used trademark is similar to the registered trademark in a trial on cancellation of trademark registration on the ground of an unlawful use under Article 73(1)2 of the Trademark Act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Hu1521 Decided December 26, 2013). B.
(1) In accordance with the evidence duly admitted, the lower court: (i) the Defendant completed trademark registration of the mark consisting of the registered trademark of this case as indicated below with regard to the goods classified as the category 29 of the goods; and (ii) the Defendant manufactured and sold fish spawn, etc. from September 201 to September 201; and (iii) the Defendant’s mark 1 of the trademarks in actual use as indicated below.