The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 20, 2020 on the case No. 2019 Party (Revocation Judgment) No. 158 shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) Registration number / filing date / registration date / registration date / registration date: For the registered trademark C/D/ E//Sgd. 17. 17. 201: For the designated goods: the agricultural product category No. 5 of the category of goods - The agricultural product category No. 29 of the category of goods - the rice of Category No. 29 of the classification of the goods - the crym, the crym, the crym, the crym, the crym, the number of - the rice feed of Category 31 of the classification of the goods. The agricultural product category No. 3

(b) Marks subject to verification (1): Rice;

C. (1) On July 30, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion against the Plaintiff for a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the trademark right of this case against the Intellectual Property Tribunal, asserting that “The trademark subject to confirmation and the mark of the trademark of this case are common parts.” “Mere rice” falls under a trademark used commonly for rice products or indicating the quality of “rice products” in a common way, and thus, the Plaintiff’s use of the trademark subject to confirmation does not fall under the scope of rights of the trademark right of this case pursuant to Article 90(1)2 or 4 of the Trademark Act.”

(2) After examining the above request for a trial by the Intellectual Property Tribunal as 2018Da2366, on December 5, 2018, the trademark subject to confirmation is similar to the registered trademark of the instant case, and thus, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling dismissing the Defendant’s request (hereinafter “original trial ruling”).

(3) On January 2, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the original adjudication with the Patent Court.

The Patent Court held that as long as the case was examined by 2019Heo1070 as to rice products, the term “mergic mark” or “mergic mark” does not have much distinctiveness, and it is not appropriate for the Patent Court to allow a specific person to monopoly the term “mergic mark” for public interest. The trademark subject to confirmation is not similar to the registered trademark or mark of this case on the ground that the distinctiveness in function as an indication of source of a specific person has weak distinctiveness.