Cases where a trial decision was rendered on the matters for which the trial decision was not requested, and where the trial decision was rejected;

Where a trial decision of the first instance rendered that "(A) mark does not belong to the scope of the right of a claimant (number 1 omitted)" in accordance with the purport of a claimant's request, the original trial decision shall be reversed. In the appeal by the claimant, the request of the claimant for the trial cannot be concluded. Expenses for the trial and the appeal shall be borne by the respondent for the appeal," the second trial decision shall be reversed. The second trial decision rendered that "(a) mark belongs to the scope of the right of the trademark" shall be reversed. The second trial decision rendered that "(a) mark falls under the scope of the right of the trademark" is erroneous, and there is no trial decision admitting or rejecting the request of the claimant for the trial decision.

3.2

claimant

Appellants

Patent Court Decision 84 decided May 20, 1967

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

This case is remanded to the Patent Office.

As to the ground of appeal by the claimant's representative:

According to the purport of a claimant (a) mark (registration number 2 omitted) (a) is not within the scope of the right of the trademark (registration number 1 omitted) under the trademark registration (registration number 1 omitted), and according to the purport of the respondent's reply, "any request for trial cannot be made (a) mark belongs to the scope of the right of the trademark registration (registration number 1 omitted)." According to the judgment of the first instance court, "(a) mark is not within the scope of the right of the claimant." According to the judgment of the court of first instance, "the trial expenses shall be borne by the claimant." According to the judgment of the court of first instance, "(a) mark does not fall within the scope of the right of the trademark registration (registration number 1 omitted." On the above judgment of the defendant, the trial decision of the court below is reversed as a specific application and the trial decision of the court of appeal cannot be established. Expenses for trial and appeal shall be borne by the respondent." The trial decision of the court below is clear that the registration number 1) mark belongs to the scope of the trademark registration.

However, as seen above, the claimant filed a trial decision that the trademark (A) which belongs to the claimant's right does not belong to the law of the trademark right of the claimant (number 1 omitted) which belongs to the right of the claimant, and the first instance court accepted the above application by the claimant, and the claimant also sought a trial decision of the first instance court because it is unfair that the claimant's specific application in the appeal is also unfair, and it cannot be established, and it is obvious that the trademark (A) such as the order of the original trial at the court below is within the scope of the right of the trademark. However, although it is obvious that the court below did not request the trial decision that the trademark "(A) belongs to the scope of the right of the trademark," the court below's decision was unfair, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment as to the ground of appeal by omitting the decision of the claimant's request or rejection from the order.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.