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. The Defendant’s filing date of the instant registered service mark (a evidence 1) / the filing date of the registration / the filing date of the final renewal/registration number of the registration: C/D/E 2 May 25, 2016: 3 designated service business: “A designated service business”, which is a designated service business of the instant registered service mark classified by category 43, is classified by category 112 as the category of service business at the time of the registration of the service mark, but the classification of the goods was registered on July 6, 2006 by the Plaintiff’s application for the registration of the conversion of the classification of the goods into category 43 as the category of service business.
the Refrigerent and specialized restaurant business;
(b) The service business using the mark subject to confirmation (No. 18) of the plaintiff: the business of traditional Korean-style restaurant;
C. On September 25, 2015, the grounds for the instant trial decision (Evidence 1) by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, who is the person entitled to registration of the instant registered service mark, who is the person entitled to registration of the instant registered service mark, is nothing more than indicating the Plaintiff’s trade name in a common way, and the part of the challenged mark “Liwon” among the challenged marks constitutes a conspicuous geographical name. As such, the trademark subject to confirmation does not affect the right to registered service mark of this case in accordance with Article 51(1)1 and 3 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).
In addition, it cannot be deemed that the registered service mark of this case, which consists solely of a conspicuous geographical name, obtained distinctiveness by use.
The purport of the Act is to confirm the scope of rights of the challenged mark. (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the Plaintiff’s above request for a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the challenged mark. On October 31, 2016, the registered service mark “ ” and the challenged mark “ ” are different from each other, but the concept and name are identical and similar to each other, and the designated service business of the registered service mark of this case and the service business of the challenged mark are similar.
(2).