logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2018.03.30 2017허7753
거절결정(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) Number / filing date of the application for the trademark in this case: Number of designated goods: Water produced in Category B, spring water, shot water, carbon water, carbon acids, optical spring water, drinking water, drinking water, booming water, light water for drinking water, light spring water, small and medium water for drinking water, small and medium water for drinking water, emulsion for manufacturing beverages, light spring water and carbon acid water for manufacturing beverages;

(b) The remaining milk business corporation shall be from 1 to 12 of the registered trademark right holder: it shall be as shown in the attached Form;

C. On December 9, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the submission of a written opinion, etc. on the ground that “The trademark of this case is identical to that submitted as the prior registered trademark of another person.” The trademark of this case is similar to the trademark of this case, which is the essential part of the prior registered trademark, and the trademark is identical or similar to the designated goods of the prior registered trademark, and the designated goods also correspond to or similar to the designated goods of the prior registered trademark, and thus falls under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply). The Plaintiff submitted a written opinion, etc. on February 4, 2016. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rejected the instant decision of refusal on April 2, 2016 on the ground that the aforementioned grounds for rejection was not resolved.) The Plaintiff of this case’s decision of refusal as the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Commission against the Plaintiff on May 268, 2016, 2016.

However, on October 16, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a very similar trademark to the trademark of this case and the trademark of this case 8 and the trademark of this case 1 through 7, 9 through 12 as a whole. The trademark of this case is identical or similar to the trademark of this case as designated goods of the applied trademark of this case, "small, carbon, live water, mineral water, etc." which is the designated goods of the applied trademark of this case. Thus, the trademark of this case falls under Article 7 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act, and thus, the trademark of this case constitutes the trademark of this case.

arrow