beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Number 1 of the application number / filing date of the applied trademark 1 of this case: No. 40-209-50536/150 on October 15, 2009: the designated goods of the former (general trademark) No. 3: the designated goods as shown in the attached Form : (b) the pre-use trademark 1 of the pre-use trademark : the former products of the SPA WIDM 2: the user of the household-spathy bath goods and busd goods (b) the Defendant joining the Defendant: the Defendant
C. On October 12, 2012, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on the ground that the trademark applied for registration of this case was identical or similar to the pre-use trademark, its mark, and designated goods (use goods) recognized as indicating the goods of a specific person among domestic or foreign consumers. Thus, the trademark applied for unjust enrichment by taking advantage of the quality image and customer attraction with the pre-use trademark, and thus, it cannot obtain trademark registration as it constitutes Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act. Accordingly, on November 16, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal. 2) The Patent Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the trademark applied for registration of this case was identical or similar to the pre-use trademark recognized as indicating the goods of a specific person among the domestic or foreign consumers, and thus, the trademark applied for trademark registration of this case constitutes an unlawful purpose under Article 7(1)2(1) of the Trademark Act for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the user.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s trial decision’s illegality
A. Even though the pre-use trademarks are not known to the extent that they can be perceived as trademarks of a specific person among consumers domestically or internationally, the decision was erroneous in domestic or UK.