beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
A. On November 30, 198, the pending service mark “ ” was directly identified as “place where services, such as services, related to launch,” and the pending service mark is a non-distinctive mark indicating the place of provision of the designated service. Thus, the designated service is not wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) and the registered service mark cannot be registered under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016). The submission of the opinion to the effect that the instant pending service mark “ 2.”
2) 이에 원고가 2016. 3. 30. 이 사건 출원서비스표가 구 상표법 제6조 제2항의 사용에 의한 식별력을 취득한 서비스표에 해당한다는 취지의 의견서를 제출하였으나, 특허청 심사관은 2016. 6. 1.「“풋샵” 또는 “foot shop"은 발마사지 등을 제공하는 가게의 의미로 다수인이 사용하고 있는 것으로 보이고, ”**shop"의 형태는 대상물의 건강 및 미용관리를 해주는 가게의 이름으로 일반적으로 사용된다고 할 것이어서, 이 사건 출원서비스표에 대해 사용에 의한 식별력 취득을 인정하여 독점배타권을 주는 것은 타당하지 않으므로, 이 사건 출원서비스표는 구 상표법 제6조 제1항 제3호, 제7호의 거절이유를 해소하지 못하였다.
For the reason that the Patent Tribunal rendered a decision of refusal to register the instant pending service mark (Evidence A3) on June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial against the said decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the petition for a trial against the said decision of refusal in the case of 2016 Won3810. On December 27, 2017, the pending service mark of this case was directly reduced to the meaning of “the place where the service related to the launch is provided” as a whole, and thus, its designated service business’s use, content of the service, the place where the service is provided, etc., cannot be recognized.