logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2015.09.24 2015허62
등록취소(상)
Text

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 2, 2014 on the case No. 2013Da3166 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number of the instant registered trademark 1: / June 16, 2004/Sgd. 58236/2 on December 12, 2002: Designated goods consisting of 3 designated goods: Mccote type, macin type, straw-splate, golf-splate, golf-sprink, golf-sprink, bowling-splate, golf-sprink, skiing-sprink, skiing-sprink, glick-splate, glick-splate, roof-splate, roof-splate.

B. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff that “The registration of the instant registered trademark should be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act, since the instant registered trademark was not used in the Republic of Korea for not less than three consecutive years prior to the filing date of the request for the revocation trial without justifiable grounds,” and that “the registration of the instant registered trademark should be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act.” 2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated on the said request as 2013Da3166, and rendered the instant trial ruling cited by the Defendant on December 2, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion asserts that the decision on revocation of the designated goods of the registered trademark of this case, among those of the registered trademark of this case, was unlawful even if the goods for which the revocation trial was requested, were used in Korea within three years before the date the revocation trial of this case was requested by the plaintiff, and thus, the

3. Whether Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act applies to the instant registered trademark or not, with the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 12, the Plaintiff imported 2,00 golf clubs on April 4, 2009. The Plaintiff was attached with the mark “” on the front of the said golf clubs, and the Plaintiff was attached with 12 out of the above imported golf locks on January 18, 2012, for which three years have not passed from the date of the revocation of the instant registration, on January 10, 201, and 7 the above golf club locks were calculated on the home-pler calculation point on January 10, 201.

arrow