logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2019.07.12 2019허1582
등록취소(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. On June 28, 2018, the Defendant asserted that “The Plaintiff’s registered trademark/service mark indicated in B (B) of this case is not used in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years prior to the filing date of a request for a trial on the designated goods and designated service (hereinafter “designated service subject to cancellation”) and thus, the registration of the trademark/service mark on the designated service subject to cancellation should be revoked, as it falls under Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act.” The Defendant filed a request against the Plaintiff for a trial on cancellation of registration of the trademark/service mark on the designated service subject to cancellation of the trademark/service mark (hereinafter “instant request for a trial”).

(2) On November 22, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant judgment citing the Defendant’s instant judgment on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s use of a mark identical to the instant registered trademark service mark in the book (E-BOK) that the Plaintiff produced and published rather than engaging in sales agency business, which is a service business for selling and receiving fees for goods of another person to a third party.” Thus, even if the Plaintiff used a mark identical to the instant registered trademark service mark in the book (E-BOK), it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s use of an electronic book (E-BOK) using the Internet, which is the designated service business subject to cancellation, and there is no other circumstance to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have properly used the instant registered trademark service mark within three years prior to the date of the instant request for a trial, and it is not recognized that there is no justifiable reason to use the registered trademark service mark.”

(b).

arrow