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) Registered trademark 1) filing date/registration date//registration number: C/D/E 2: 3) Designated goods: The defendant; non-metallic-type Hashes, non-metallic-type handets, non-metallic-type simplifieds, non-metallic-type buildings, non-metallic-type assembly boxes, non-metallic-type buildings, non-metallic-type mobile buildings, and non-metallic-type assembly-type buildings 4):
B. On January 16, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial to revoke trademark registration on the ground that the registration of the registered trademark has to be revoked pursuant to Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act (No. 2019Da196) since the registered trademark was not used in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years prior to the date of the request for a trial to revoke all of the designated goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da196, Nov. 5, 2019). On November 5, 2019, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision to reject the Plaintiff’s request (hereinafter “instant trial decision”) on the ground that the registered trademark was properly used by the Defendant, who is the trademark holder, within three
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the illegality of the trial decision of this case
A. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant, the trademark holder of the trademark right, indicated the registered trademark on “non-metallic movement-type buildings and non-metallic assembly-type buildings” and made it possible to use the registered trademark within the Republic of Korea within three years prior to the date of a request for revocation trial against at least one of the designated goods. 2) In addition, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion on the use of the trademark, and even if the use of the trademark is recognized, it cannot be deemed as designated goods of the registered trademark.
Nevertheless, the decision of this case which did not accept the plaintiff's request for a trial is unlawful.