logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2019.03.28 2018허9114
권리범위확인(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. 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: C/D/E 2) previous service business: 3) designated service business classified by category 41; exhibition industry for cultural and educational purposes; provision of educational information; teaching material publishing business; book/magaz publishing business; publishing business; publishing business of electronic publications; exhibition and occupation of educational purposes; preparation and proceeding business of educational meetings; preparation and proceeding business of educational meetings; preparation and proceeding business of cultural experience events; 4) service mark right holder: Defendant;

(b) The service business of using the challenged mark 1) the Gu: the business of publishing teaching materials, books/magazines, publishing and editing, publishing and editing printed materials, publishing electronic publications, and 3 employers of learning paper publishing: The plaintiff;

C. 1) On November 5, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board against the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserted that the challenged mark is identical or similar to the instant registered service mark, and that the service mark is identical or similar to the designated service business of the instant registered service mark, and that the registered service mark falls under the scope of the instant registered service mark, and that the instant registered service mark falls under the scope of the right of the instant registered service mark, and that the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board filed a request to confirm the scope of active rights (2017Da1595) with respect to the challenged mark.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant registered service mark, the mark subject to confirmation, and the designated service business (use) are identical or similar.

arrow