logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2017.04.06 2016허9530
거절결정(상)
Text

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 21, 2016 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on a case No. 2015 won 4394 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The filing date and the application number of the trademark 1 of this case: 1./ No. 40-2014-014-046847 2 of July 11, 2014: 3) Designated goods: Clothing, shoes, footwear, magar (hereinafter “each of the designated goods of this case”) classified into category 25:

4) Applicant: Plaintiff

나. 선등록상표 1) 출원일/ 등록일/ 갱신등록일/ 등록번호: 1988. 5. 27./ 1989. 9. 12./ 2009. 3. 23./ 제178897호 2) 구성: 3) 지정상품: 상품류 구분 제25류의 신사복, 반바지, 양복바지, 청바지, 스웨터, 양말, 모자, 혁대, 가죽신, 고무신, 샌달, 우화, 스커트, 슬랙스(Slacks), 아동복, 오버롤(Overall), 오버코트, 원피스, 유아복, 자켓, 잠바, 파카(Parkas), 수영모자, 수영복, 수영팬츠, 스웨트셔츠, 스웨트팬츠, 스포츠셔츠, 카디건, 파자마, 폴로셔츠, T셔츠, 목도리, 반다나(Bandana), 벙어리장갑, 타이츠(Tights), 나이트캡, 베레모, 의류용후두, 톱햇(Tophat), 야구모, 스키모 4) 상표권자: 마루다까 이료오 가부시끼가이샤

C. 1) The examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office decided to refuse the registration of the applied trademark of this case on the ground that “The trademark of this case is similar to another person’s prior registered trademark, mark, and designated goods, and thus cannot be registered under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply).” (2) The Plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication seeking revocation of the said decision of refusal with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal 2015 Won4394, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for adjudication on October 21, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act in preparation for the prior registered trademark, and thus its registration should be granted. However, the conclusion is different.

arrow