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. The filing date of the international registration of this case (1) / the international registration number / the international registration date: (3) the mark on July 16, 2014, No. 121574/ 12574/200: the designated goods specified in Category 25: Morcycle gloves, Biccle gluves, Blus, caps, caps and caps, caps and caps of the reported goods, bos, lus, lubs, Sweets, Sweets, Sweets, Wter procle ja jaets, Wocycle jaets, Tricks, Trat lus, Trat-2, 14
(1) On February 4, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the grounds for rejection that the trademark applied for registration of this case falls under Articles 6(1)7 and 10(1) of the Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).
(2) On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion and amendment on the foregoing grounds for rejection. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of rejection on December 17, 2015 on the ground that “ even if a written opinion and amendment are reviewed by the Plaintiff, the part of Article 6(1)7 of the former Trademark Act among the grounds for rejection was not resolved.”
(3) On March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the aforementioned decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal (2016 Won1601). However, on July 3, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “The trademark applied for trademark of this case is not appropriate to grant exclusive rights to a specific person for the public interest and it is difficult for consumers to distinguish whether it indicates goods related to his/her business, and thus, it falls under Article 6(1)7 of the former Trademark Act, and it cannot be deemed that the trademark applied for trademark of this case obtained distinctiveness by using Article 6(2) of the former Trademark Act.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 1 to 4 evidence No. 4 are evidence No. 1.