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) The Plaintiff’s registered design (a) of the instant case (a) Nos. 1 and 2 (1)/ the filing date/registration number: B/C/D (2): The name of the goods: the name of the goods under the name of the goods under the design B/D (3): the design of the funeral room (attached Form 1
B. The Defendant’s prior designs (1) are prior designs 1 (No. 7) (No. 7) as designs pertaining to “ear” published on the Internet NAB Blogs (E) on October 21, 2015, and their drawings are as set forth in attached Form 2(A).
(2) Prior design 2 (No. 8) is a design related to the “compan-fluence,” published on Internet NAV B B (F) on October 13, 2013, and its drawings are as set out in attached Form 2(B).
(c) Designated goods consisting of First Used Trademark 1 (a)/registration number of the defendant's prior use trademarks (including evidence Nos. 4, 1, 1) (1) / 30480 (b): (c) Designated goods consisting of No. 14 ging, ear-bring, ear-bring, Bret, bralet, dyp, wrop, brop, ON-in, KON-in, precious metal agents, precious metal manufacturers, precious metal manufacturers, kntons, kins, wrop, wrop, etc. (2) registration date/registration number of First Used Trademark 2 (a) on July 18, 198: (c) Designated goods consisting of No. 14 ging, ear-bring, brop, brop, brop, brote, terop, terop, terop, terop, etc.
D. (1) On October 20, 2016, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration (2016Da32777) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff, asserting that “The registered design of this case is easily created by the combination of the prior design 1 and 2, and falls under Article 33(2) of the Design Protection Act, or the Defendant, even in the instant lawsuit, maintains this assertion as a selective assertion. Similar to the pre-use trademark 1 and 2, it is likely to cause confusion with the goods related to the Defendant’s business, and falls under Article 34 subparag. 3 of the Design Protection Act.”
(2) On April 17, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (Korea Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board) held that the registered design of this case was a specific person.