logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2015.04.30 2015허345
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. 1) The filing date/registration date//registration number: B/C/D2: The designated goods: (3) the designated goods: (attached Form 1); (4) the holder of the right to register: The plaintiff;

B. On April 7, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition for revocation trial against the Plaintiff, stating that “The registration of each of the designated goods listed in the instant registered trademark (attached Form 2 (hereinafter “each of the designated goods of this case”) was not used in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years before the date of the request for revocation without justifiable grounds, and thus, the registration must be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act.” 2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated the instant case as 2014Da841, and rendered the instant trial ruling citing the Defendant’s request for revocation on December 19, 2014.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry and video of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that E, a non-exclusive licensee, attached the instant registered trademark to cosmetics combined with lids, thereby using the instant registered trademark in Sporid.

Therefore, since a non-exclusive licensee has properly used the registered trademark of this case on the designated goods within three years before the date of the request for revocation of this case, the registered trademark of this case shall not be revoked on each of the designated goods of this case.

If so, the trial decision of this case, which has different conclusions, should be revoked.

3. Whether the registered trademark of this case constitutes Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act

A. Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act of the legal doctrine necessary for judgment is that a trademark right holder, an exclusive licensee, or a non-exclusive licensee is registered in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years before the date a request for revocation is filed with respect to the designated goods without justifiable grounds.

arrow