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 applied trademark in this case (Evidence 2) / Application Number 1: B/C2: Unprocessed goods of Category 18 classified as the category of goods, or semi-processed household goods, walletss, bags, bags, backbags, handbags, bags for sports use, probags, sticks, mags, travel bags;
B. On March 5, 2018, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (Evidence A 1, 39, 40) notified the Plaintiff of the submission of a written opinion on July 3, 2018 to the effect that “The trademark of this case constitutes a simple and shaking mark, which is easily perceived as an English Alphabab, constitutes a trademark, and it is not possible for ordinary consumers to obtain trademark registration pursuant to Article 33(1)6 and 7 of the Trademark Act, because the trademark of this case constitutes a mark which is not recognizable as a trademark indicating the goods related to a person’s business (Evidence 40. 2). The Plaintiff submitted a written opinion on July 3, 2018, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of rejection on the ground that the above grounds for rejection was not resolved even if the written opinion was reviewed on August 30, 2018.
(A) On September 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2018 Won4044) on September 28, 2018. However, on August 30, 2019, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “the trademark applied for trademark in this case was simply a simple and ordinary mark, and constitutes Article 33(1)6 of the Trademark Act” (Article 33(1)6 of the Trademark Act), the basic facts of the instant decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal were written differently from the trademark applied for trademark in this case as stated in the purport of the request for appeal, but it appears to be an obvious clerical error.
2. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the trademark of this case is in the shape of “teice pockets”, “brooms for home use”, and “China food knife” and is different from the “P” of the general letter.