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 application 1)/ Number of application (international registration number): The designated service business consisting of No. 1141023(2) on November 7, 2012: 3) the designated service business: Hotel loyalty proms frequestesting class of Category 43 classified by service business;
B. On December 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for international trademark registration on the instant pending service mark. On April 24, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to refuse the registration of the instant service mark by applying Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act on the ground that the instant pending service mark constitutes an indication of the nature of the service business (quality, content of the service provision, etc.) and its distinctiveness is not recognized. (2) The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal. On January 5, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the instant pending service mark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal in the case of KRW 2014 Won2916, and dismissed the instant appeal on the ground that the instant pending service mark was a mark directly indicating its quality, content and method of the service provision, and constitutes Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act.
[Reasons for Recognition] A.1-4 Evidence, purport of whole pleading
2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the pending service mark “” consists of “CRSOVER” and “READS”, a small symbol that domestic consumers are unable to understand its meaning without refering it in advance, and even if domestic consumers can understand their individual meaning, it cannot be deemed that the pending service mark “compacting compensation” in the report.
Therefore, the pending service mark cannot be considered as a mark directly indicating the nature of the designated service business, and Article 6 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act is not a mark.