logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2019.11.08 2019허3229
거절결정(상)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Composition B/C2 of the filing date or application number of the trademark 1) : 3 designated goods classified into category 9: Do lecture reality software, data processing software, computer, video display service, digital camera, luminous camera, luminous, light view, eye view, 3D border, virtual image reproduction device, electronic and optical communication device, portable media display equipment, computer surrounding device, radio Hdc, increased reality electronic image display device;

(b) 1) Date and date of application/registration/registration number: 3) Designated goods: A holder of the right to the electronic medium containing music, computer software, optical term (excluding a draft and photographic device) 4) , computer software, or optical term (excluding a draft and photographic device) 9 categories of goods: G;

C. 1) On June 9, 2017, an examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of his/her opinion on the Plaintiff’s application for trademark registration of B’s applied trademark registration. On August 9, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted his/her written opinion on August 9, 2017, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office issued a decision to refuse trademark registration (hereinafter “the instant decision to refuse trademark registration”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to resolve the grounds for rejection as of October 16, 2017, even according to the above written opinion on October 16, 2017.

3) On December 19, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that both trademarks are not similar in the case of seeking revocation of the instant decision of refusal (2017 Won6063, and the applied trademark is referred to as “carb,” and is not similar to “KB,” which is the title of the pre-registered trademark, and that the pre-registered trademark is not similar in the case of comparison with the applied trademark by observing the pre-registered trademark as a whole and observing it as a whole.

However, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 21, 2019.

arrow