beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) Registration number 1) / filing date / registration date: Composition of No. 40-108151/ October 17, 2013: 3) Designated goods: Potters for food consignment in Category 33 classified into the category of goods, Potters, spajus, Switzerlands, spawrus, spags, spawrus, spawrus, spawrus, spawrus, spawrus, spawrus, spawrus, spawrus. 4): The owner of a trademark right: the plaintiff
B. 1) The Defendant’s registered trademark of this case (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same applies)
(2) On March 23, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board claimed that the instant registered trademark falls under Article 7(1)14, and filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration (2015Da4122). The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant trial ruling citing the Defendant’s request for a trial on the ground that “The instant registered trademark contains “Emilia”, a geographical indication of the region of Maria (EMIALA), a member country of the World Trade Organization, as it is intended to use the trademark for delivery as the designated goods. Thus, the trademark is intended to be used for delivery as the designated goods, and its registration should be invalidated by falling under Article 7(1)14 of the former Trademark Act
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The summary of the grounds for the decision on illegality of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not used as a geographical indication or a geographical indication any longer in Italian, and “EMIELA” is not used as a trademark including a geographical indication because it does not refer to an Esia region, and the instant registered trademark is not currently protected or used as a geographical indication in Europe, and rather is recognized as a Chile U.S. brand produced and sold by the Plaintiff to traders or users, and thus, the instant registered trademark does not constitute “a trademark” including such indication.
3. Article 7(1) of the former Trademark Act provides that the registered trademark of this case shall be registered.