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 registration number of the instant registered service mark (No. 1 and 3 No. 1) / the filing date of an application / the filing date of the service mark registration: The designated service business entity: the trademark right holder of the instant registered service business: the miscellaneous (including wallets, mags, caps, caps, and pacts) of Category 35 classified by the service business, export and import agent business, import and export agent business, landscaping sales agent business, landscaping sales agent business, class sales agent business, class sales agent business of sports exclusive use, sales agent business of sports exclusive use, sales agent business, doping guide sales agent, skiing sales agent, sales agent of marg, and sales agent of winds: the Plaintiff;
B. On August 2, 2018, the Defendant filed a petition for the revocation trial against the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the registered service mark of this case, on the ground that “miscellaneous goods (including miscellaneous goods, caps, caps, and pacts) sales agent, and sales agent for sports exclusive use” (hereinafter “designated service business subject to the revocation of this case”) in the designated service of the registered service mark of this case under the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board 2018Da2453 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal.
(2) Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 11113, Dec. 2, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that “The Patent Tribunal shall apply Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 11113, Dec. 2, 2011; hereinafter the same) on September 16, 2019, to the designated service business subject to cancellation of the instant registered service mark, on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff properly used the instant registered service mark within the Republic of Korea within three years prior to the date of the instant request for adjudication.”
Therefore, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board determines the case by applying Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act.