beta
Text
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 9, 2016 on the case shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) The Plaintiff’s registered service mark (a evidence 1) of this case / the filing date / the registration number / the registration number : C/D/ E 2): Legal advice service of Category 45 classified by service business;
B. On January 22, 2015, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the registered service mark of this case, on January 22, 2015; and (b) on the grounds that the registered service mark of this case was used in the designated service business by the holder of the registered service mark or the holder of the right to use the registered service mark for three consecutive years before the date of the request for revocation; (c) the registration of this case must be revoked pursuant to Article 73(
The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal asserted to the purport that the registered service mark of this case is revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 and (4) of the Trademark Act, on March 9, 2016, there is no evidence to prove that the registered service mark of this case was properly used in the designated service business in Korea within three years before the date of the request for revocation. The registered service mark of this case must be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 and (4) of the Trademark Act. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the decision of this case that cited the above request for adjudication on March 9, 2016.
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with F, who used the instant registered service mark in the Cheongju-si, on the establishment of a non-exclusive license to allow F, while using the instant registered service mark in the Cheongju-si area. Since then F, as a non-exclusive licensee, has used the instant registered service mark. Accordingly, in the case of the instant registered service mark, it was used in legal advice services by F, a non-exclusive licensee within three years before January 22, 2015, which is the date on which the Defendant’s revocation request was filed.