Kim Jong-young (Patent Attorney White-nam, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

name of Chuncheon

may 27, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 25, 2005 on the case No. 2004Da1759 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

[Evidence: Descriptions of Evidence A 1 to 3]

A. Details of the registered trademark of this case

(a) Registration number: No. 584246;

(2) Date of application/registration: March 17, 2003/ June 4, 2004

(3) Composition:

(4) Designated goods: Chapter 20 of the classification of goods of attached Table 1 of Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act

B. Details of the instant trial decision

The Plaintiff filed a petition for the invalidation trial against the Defendant on the ground that the registered trademark of this case was registered in violation of Articles 6(1)3 and 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act. The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the above case on January 25, 2005 as 204Da1759, and decided on January 25, 2005, in light of the Republic of Korea’s spread of Japanese language and education level, etc., it is difficult to see that the registered trademark of this case can not be seen as falling under the trademark solely with the mark indicated in a common way as designated goods, and thus, the registered trademark of this case cannot be seen as falling under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act, and the submitted evidence alone does not constitute the trademark registration of this case for the purpose of remarkably recognizing that the registered trademark of this case was a specific person in the Republic of Korea or foreign consumers, and thus, it cannot be seen as being unfair for the Defendant’s dismissal of the registered trademark of this case.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Japanese language “Lanman Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don" is indicated as Korean language, and the Japanese language “Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don” means “1 Don Don Don Don, Bn

Therefore, Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act provides that when the word "Malar" is used for the designated goods of the trademark of this case, it is recognized as "a comfortable or very comfortable," thereby indicating the efficacy of the goods.

(2) In the case of a provisional disposition such as the prohibition of sale against the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2003Kahap1557), the Defendant asserted that “Manyang is an enterprise widely known by using a trademark name, and the Defendant was granted the right to sell a diversity of a diversity by using the trademark name,” such as the prohibition of sale against the Plaintiff. In fact, the Defendant sold a diversing divers with the trademark of “Manyang” while advertising and publicizing the products of the Japanese branch.

Therefore, as the Defendant asserted in the foregoing related case, the trademark widely known as “Irehovah” corporation at the time of the application of the trademark of this case, which is widely recognized as the trademark of a specific person among the consumers in Japan at the time of the application of the trademark of this case, and the Defendant uses the trademark for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits. Thus, it constitutes Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act.

B. Determination

(1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 to 3, the Japanese language marking "Seman" is " Dokuru" and its meaning is "Dokuru" and it can be acknowledged that "I Dokuru" is "I am easily in the shape, mode, (b) easy, easy, easy, and easy." Meanwhile, the meaning of a trademark should be able to directly see the trademark by general consumers, and it can be known only after an examination, deliberation, or prior examination, it is not subject to consideration. In light of Korea's distribution and education level, it is difficult to see that general consumers or traders, designated goods of the registered trademark of this case, "Seman" as designated goods of the registered trademark of this case, and directly use the registered trademark of this case by tending "Seman" or "Seak Doese" as the Korean trademark "Seung" or "Seung Does" as the registered goods of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the trademark of this case can not be seen as the designated goods of this case.

(2) For a trademark to constitute an unlawful purpose under Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act, the subject trademark shall be a well-known trademark which is remarkably recognized as a trademark of a specific person between domestic or foreign consumers. Whether the subject trademark is an well-known trademark shall be determined at the time of application for the trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu1362, May 14, 2004).

Therefore, as alleged by the plaintiff, examining whether the trademark "Manyang" in Japan is a trademark recognized remarkably as the trademark of "after-the-counter corporation of the main body of Japan" in the course of a contact with a third party, it is insufficient to recognize it only with the images of Gap evidence 11-1 to 4, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without need to further examine.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the trial decision of this case as the conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

Judges Lee Jae-hwan (Presiding Judge)