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) Date of the Plaintiff’s instant registered service mark (a evidence 1) 1/registration date/registration number: On November 8, 2010, 2010 / 226908 / Gu on February 20, 2012: 3): Designated service business: Book publishing business under Category 41, online electronic book publishing business (only for reading) and magazine publishing business under Category 41, online electronic book publishing business (only for reading), online electronic publication business (only for reading, electronic deposit publishing business, news news reporting service business, educational information providing business, study and good offices business, language private teaching institutes management, photographing business, event holding agency business, entertainment facility business, online game service business, holiday operation, holidaying business, camping service business, electronic recreation service business, and low publishing business;
(b) Use service business of the defendant's mark subject to verification (a) 1): Internet news, newspaper publication, publication, video, broadcast and communications;
C. On May 17, 2016, the Defendant’s decision of this case (No. 3 evidence) 1) against the Plaintiff, who is the person holding the right to the registered service mark of this case, on May 17, 2016, as the trademark of this case and the mark subject to confirmation, cannot be recognized as having distinctiveness as a combination of a conspicuous geographical name and technical mark or ordinary name, and thus both marks cannot be deemed as similar as a whole. In addition, for the foregoing reason, the part of “Korea News” without distinctiveness constitutes not only Article 51(1)2 and 3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) but also Article 51(1)1 of the former Trademark Act, since it constitutes a trademark subject to confirmation, since it falls under the scope of protection of the registered service mark of this case.
The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal asserted to the purport that “A request for a trial to confirm the scope of a patent right against the challenged mark.” (2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal has deliberated on the said request for a trial as a case of 2016Da1272, and thereafter the registered service mark of this case on February 17, 2017.