beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) On July 25, 2019, the Plaintiff used the Defendant for the “hotdog” in the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant on July 25, 2019, the mark indicated in the following C (hereinafter “the mark subject to confirmation”).
(B) The trademark indicated below (hereinafter referred to as “instant registered trademark”) is the Plaintiff’s trademark right holder.
(2) On January 7, 2020, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a trial to confirm the scope of right (2019No. 2390) on the ground that “the mark subject to confirmation constitutes a technical mark meaninged with a large size, and is not used as an indication of origin of a trademark,” and thus, it does not fall within the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark pursuant to Article 90(1)2 of the Trademark Act without further review of the remainder of the claimant’s claims.”
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant trial decision”). (b)
The Plaintiff’s registered trademark (Evidence 2) No. 1) / filing date/registration date: Trademark registration C/D/E 2) Gu: The designated goods: 3) Doldol (otog, amblbl, babbl, food breg, babl, etc. in the category of goods of Category 30.
(c) Goods subject to verification (Evidence 3) 1: Goods subject to verification : 2) used: 3) used mode: as stated in [Attachment 1]. 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the trademark law is wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016. However, Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Trademark Act amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016 provides that “this Act shall apply from the date of application for trademark registration filed after this Act enters into force.” The filing date of the registered trademark of this case is obvious to be prior to September 1, 2016, and thus, the former Trademark Act shall apply to this case.
A. The plaintiff's arguments 1'Bg' or 'Bigg' are token.