beta
Text
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 31, 2014 on the case No. 2012DaDa2743 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) The registered trademark 1) filing date/registration date/registration date/registration number for renewal/: B/ C/D/E 2: 3) Designated goods: The defendant; the owner of the trademark right: the simplification of Category 25 of the classification of the goods, the strawers, the agricultural bed, the agricultural bed, the agricultural bed, the leather, the leather, the sandbox, the vinyl, the vinyl and the golfization 4):
B. Product No. 5 (Evidence No. 5, No. 37, and No. 38) No. 1: 2) Use mode 3): Use mode 3: Use mode 1 in a manner attached to the external part of the physical part, as follows (the form of use of money is as shown in the attached Form).
4) User: Defendant
C. 1) The subject trademarks of this case 1) filing date / the registration date / the renewal registration date / the registration number / the registration date : August 20, 1996 / 11. / April 23, 2008 / 37274 (b): D: Plaintiff 2) the subject trademarks of this case / the filing date / the registration date / the renewal date / the registration date / the registration date / the renewal registration number : August 24, 1981 : 16/16/16/191 : 30: (c) the subject trademarks of this case : Plaintiff 2 (No. 4-2) and Plaintiff 30: (d) the subject trademarks of this case : Plaintiff 50/17: 30: 5. 20.3 (Ga/7. 1. 5. : 5. Da, the subject trademarks of this case.
D. On October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the registration of the instant registered trademark should be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)2 of the Trademark Act (Article 73(1)2 of the Trademark Act, since the Defendant intentionally uses the instant registered trademark similar to the instant registered trademark on its designated goods and caused consumers to confuse the instant registered trademark with the instant registered trademark, the instant registered trademark ought to be revoked (Article 2012Da2743, hereinafter “instant request for a trial”).
(2) On March 31, 2014, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a claim for the trademark of this case, which is similar to the registered trademark of this case, but the trademark of this case and the subject trademark of this case are marks.