logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2018.11.16 2018허3666
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) The Plaintiff’s filing date of the instant registered trademark (a) 1)/ the registration date/registration number: C/D/E 2) old designated goods: The odor of Category 21 (non-electricly fixed goods) by classification of goods;

B. On April 26, 2017, the defendant used the registered trademark of this case against the plaintiff who is the trademark right holder of the registered trademark of this case "" in addition to other technical terms or pictures by the trademark right holder. The registered trademark of this case was used unlawfully in order to emphasize that the registered trademark of this case is a high quality functional product by using other technical terms or pictures by the trademark right holder. Since any of the trademark rights holder, exclusive or non-exclusive licensee has not been used in Korea for not less than three consecutive years before the date of the request for revocation without justifiable reasons, the registration of the designated goods must be revoked pursuant to Article 119 (1) 1 or 3 of the Trademark

The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the registered trademark of this case was revoked, and the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board filed a petition for a trial on the revocation of registration of the registered trademark of this case. (2) The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated on the above request for a trial on March 23, 2018, and did not prove that the Plaintiff used the registered trademark of this case as designated goods in Korea within three years before the date of the request for revocation trial, or that there was any justifiable reason for not using the registered trademark of this case. Thus, the registered trademark of this case should be revoked as it falls under Article 119 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act without further consideration as to the remaining grounds for revocation."

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The registered trademark of this case was used by the Plaintiff and F, who is the current owner of the trademark and the former owner of the trademark in the following manner, for non-electric smelling, which is the designated goods in Korea within three years before April 26, 2017, the date of the petition for revocation of the registered trademark of this case. Thus, the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act.

arrow