beta
Text
1. The Patent Tribunal No. 925891 rendered a trial decision on April 23, 2014 regarding the case No. 2013Dang8455.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) The filing date of the instant registered trademark (a) 1) / the filing date of the decision of registration / the registration date / the registration number: The composition of May 7, 2009 / May 31, 2012 / 5/ July 5, 2012 : 3) the designated goods: The holder of the right to registration is as shown in attached Table 1. 4) the Defendant:
(b) The filing date and the registration date/registration number of the earlier application trademark (No. 5) 1) / the earlier application: On August 5, 2009 / on September 27, 2010 / (No. 837261-2): 3) Designated goods: The holder of the right to register the following: cosmetics, cosmetics (cosmetic set) kidys, flassiums, human body rainy, beauty flasium, flasium, human lighting handbbrows, human signalbrows, mats for cremation, mats for cremation, and mats for cremation 4): A shower market price
C. On April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the trademark registration with respect to the Defendant, asserting that the instant registered trademark falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act. 2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated the instant petition for trial as 2013Da845, and subsequently rendered the instant petition for trial on April 23, 2014 on the ground that the instant registered trademark does not fall under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the propriety of the instant trial decision
A. 1) The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the registered trademark of this case is “(e.g., excellent or scientific)-related cosmetics” with respect to the designated goods, and it is unreasonable for a specific person to exclusively use the registered trademark in public interest. Thus, it falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act.
B) The instant registered trademark is similar to the prior application trademark and the mark, and its designated goods also correspond to Article 8(1) of the Trademark Act. 2) Since the Defendant’s assertion is a mark with distinctiveness as to the designated goods, it does not constitute Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act.