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) Date and number of the application of the trademark in this case (1) on May 28, 2014: (3) the communications cable, light frequency measuring device, mobile telephone apparatus, MP3-P4-3606 (2) mark: (a) the type of products classified as the designated goods: Telecommunications cable, light-based measuring device, mobile telephone apparatus, MP3-plate, telecommunications equipment, mobile phones, cell phones, bus receiver, satellite receiver, satellite receiver, mobile phone-based computer applied software, computer software, music files, tables, cell-computers, cellphones, cell phone protection films, television receiver, smartphone, smartphone, sunphone computer applied software, which can be landed;
B. (1) On December 17, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the grounds for rejection that “The trademark applied for registration falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) and thus, cannot be registered as to all designated goods.”
(2) On February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted an opinion on the foregoing grounds for rejection, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on April 14, 2015 on the ground that “The grounds for rejection, even if re-examination is conducted by the Plaintiff’s opinion, did not dismiss the grounds for rejection falling under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act.”
(3) On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the said decision with the Intellectual Property Tribunal (2015 Won3252). However, on October 28, 2016, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board: (a) the trademark applied for registration falls under a mark that directly reduces the quality, use, or speed, etc. of designated goods in the meaning of “in the event it is used in connection with the designated goods,” and (b) it is difficult for ordinary consumers or traders to distinguish the trademark applied for registration of this case from whose business the goods are indicated, and thus, Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act is difficult.