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) / Application Number 1) of the pending service mark / Application Number: B/ C2: Funeral business of Category 45, funeral home business of Category 45, and funeral home business;
(b) 1) Registration number/registration date/registration date: 4) Composition of service mark registration D/ E/F2: Designated service business: Funeraling rental business, funeral home business, funeral business, funeral service, funeral service, funeral-related information business, and substitute rental business 4) classification of service business category G;
C. (1) The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a service mark with the same designated service mark as C’s pending service mark. On June 24, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; the same applies hereinafter) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016);
() Article 6(1)7 of the former Trademark Act constitutes a prior-registered service mark, a mark, and a designated service business. As such, the Plaintiff notified the submission of the opinion that a service mark cannot be registered because the prior-registered service mark and the designated service mark are identical or similar. On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff amended the said mark to “the instant pending service mark” as “the instant pending service mark,” and submitted a written opinion. However, on October 17, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision dismissing the amendment pursuant to Article 17(1) of the former Trademark Act on the ground that the amendment to the instant pending service mark would have a significant impact on the external appearance, and thus constitutes an alteration of the substance. On March 14, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on revocation of the decision to dismiss the amendment (2016 No. 10).