beta
Text
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 26, 2019 on a case No. 2017Da3752 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The registration number 1) / the filing date of the application / the filing date of the registration / the filing date of the registration / the renewal date of the registration: C/D/D/ 2 September 10, 2004 /E/ 26 March 26, 2014: 3) the designated goods: Children’s uniforms, diskettes, infant clothes, children’s clothes, South-North Korean watchers, Twitts, Twitts, pends, tols, typs, typs, typs, etc. classified by category of goods.
B. The pre-use trademarks (service marks) are collectively referred to as "pre-use trademarks (service marks)" and when referring to individual pre-use trademarks, "pre-use trademarks" or "pre-use service marks" are referred to as follows:
The name of the pre-use trademark 1 pre-use trademarks 2 pre-use trademarks 3 prior-use trademarks 1 service marks 1 prior-use trademarks 2 and registration number fG G HI J HO registration date, P QR S T registration date on January 8, 2019, designated goods/designated service on August 5, 2017, 200 on the classification of products, 3rd-use trademarks 25 classification of products, such as complicationation, golfization, simplification, painting, vinyl, vinyl, garrying, garrying, garrying, 18 classification of products, 3 classification of goods, 4 classification of goods, 3 classification and sale services, 3 classification and sale services, 4 classification and sale services, 3 classification and sale services, 4 classification and sale services, 3 classification and sale services, 3 classification and sale services, 3 classification and sale services, 4 classification and sale services, 3 classification and sale services, 3 classification and sales agent services, 3 classification and sale services, 3 classification services, etc.
C. On April 3, 2002, the Seoul District Court Branch 2002Gahap2148 filed a lawsuit against U on November 7, 2002 against U on the grounds that the Plaintiff, the previous owner of the trademark of this case, is U.S., U.D., the owner of the trademark of this case, is the Defendant’s wife. The Plaintiff sold goods indicating the trademark “A” and filed a lawsuit against U on April 3, 2002.