logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2016.05.27 2016허1079
권리범위확인(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) Registration number 1) / Application date / Registration date: The registered trademark No. 1039483, / Gu on June 20, 2013 / Gu on June 27, 2013 : 3) Designated goods: The holder of the right to the mobile telephone cases, etc., classified into category 9: the Plaintiff

(b) Goods using the challenged mark 1): Defendant 3 users of mobile telephone cases;

C. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff, a trademark right holder of the instant registered trademark, filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for an affirmative trial to confirm the scope of rights by asserting that “the challenged mark is similar to the instant registered trademark and falls under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark.” 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on it as 2015Da4434, and subsequently dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition on December 18, 2015, on the ground that “the instant registered trademark and the challenged mark are not similar, and the challenged mark cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Gap evidence 9-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the grounds for revocation of the trial decision alleged by the Plaintiff is that the registered trademark of this case needs to be separated from “toi” part, and such part alone can be referred to as separate name.

Since the mark subject to confirmation is also a distinctive part of “TORY” part, the mark subject to confirmation may be referred to as “intory” only as “tory.”

As above, the registered trademark of this case and the marks subject to confirmation are collectively referred to as “tory,” and the concept can be perceived as “a person with the title of “tory,” and both marks are similar inasmuch as the “case for franchis”, which is the goods using the challenged mark, is identical to the “franchis case for franchis” which is one of the designated goods of the instant registered trademark.

Therefore, the challenged mark belongs to the scope of rights of the registered trademark of this case.

otherwise.

arrow