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/registration date/registration number of the Defendant’s registered trademark (a) of this case 1: C/D/E 2) Gu: three designated goods: newspapers, magazines, periodicals, which are classified into category 16;
B. On September 1, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) against the Defendant who is a trademark holder of the instant registered trademark before the Intellectual Property Tribunal; (b) the instant registered trademark was not used in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years on the designated goods without justifiable grounds by either the trademark holder, exclusive licensee, or non-exclusive licensee; and (c) accordingly, the registration thereof should be revoked pursuant to Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act.
2) As the Plaintiff was a non-exclusive licensee of the instant registered trademark on December 21, 2016, and used the instant registered trademark to indicate it to “F” on the Internet market, the instant registered trademark does not fall under Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act, on the grounds that it is recognized that the Plaintiff was a non-exclusive licensee of the instant registered trademark from April 19, 2013 to May 25, 2015, and thus, the instant registered trademark does not fall under Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act.
2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff used the instant registered trademark in Korea within three years from September 1, 2016, which was the date of the instant request for revocation, as one of the designated goods. However, the Plaintiff is not a non-exclusive licensee of the instant registered trademark, and there is no justifiable reason for the Defendant not using the instant registered trademark. Therefore, the instant registered trademark should be revoked as it falls under Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act, even though it is unlawful to render a different judgment.
B. Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act of the relevant legal principles is an exclusive licensee.