Plaintiff

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

January 10, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant's respective trademark rights (registration number: Registration number 2 omitted (number 2 omitted), registration number 3 omitted (number 2 omitted), and registration number 3 omitted (number : omitted) on February 24, 2012 and registration number 1 omitted (number : omitted) on October 31, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Each trademark right of this case (registration number: Registration number 1 omitted, registration number 2 omitted (number : omitted), registration number 3 omitted (number : omitted), and hereinafter referred to as "trademark 1 through 3" in order (hereinafter referred to as "gold farming industry") has been applied for in gold farming industry and registered in the name of gold farming industry (hereinafter referred to as "gold farming industry"), and the date of registration shall be as follows:

The first trademark right, second trademark right, third trademark right, and third trademark right registration date of October 1, 1992, contained in the text, shall be April 12, 1986.

B. The Plaintiff was ordered to transfer each of the trademark rights of this case to the provisional seizure and provisional seizure as follows, as a creditor against the gold and water delivery.

(2) Attachment order (1) Order of provisional seizure (No. 2010Kadan7110, Dec. 24, 2010) of the title 1 trademark right, No. 23 trademark right, 25, provisional seizure ① Order of provisional seizure (No. 98Kadan40963, Feb. 18, 1998; 2. Provisional seizure registration on Feb. 23, 1998; 2. Provisional seizure registration on December 28, 2010; 3. Provisional seizure (No. 2. 15, 2010; 3. 2. Provisional seizure registration on December 24, 2010; 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 25. 2. 1. 1. 205. 1. 2. 2. 1. 1. 205. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2010

C. On February 16, 2012, the Plaintiff was ordered to transfer each of the trademark rights of this case under the Sungwon District Court Branch Branch 201TTT 8531, and the said transfer order was finalized on April 18, 2012.

D. The gold products were registered for the completion of liquidation on December 6, 2010.

E. Based on Article 64(2) of the Trademark Act, Article 14(1)1 of the Decree on the Registration of Patent Rights, etc., the Defendant issued ex officio the registration of cancellation of the trademark right on February 24, 2012, and on October 31, 2012, on the ground that “the registration of cancellation of the trademark right in this case was completed on December 6, 2010” (hereinafter “registration of cancellation”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for Gap 2) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the registration of cancellation in this case is unlawful.

(1) Since the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment and seizure of each of the trademark rights of this case, each of the trademark rights of this case cannot be applied to Article 64(2) of the Trademark Act, and the Defendant cannot register cancellation of each of the trademark rights of this case against the validity of the provisional attachment and seizure.

(2) In order to register cancellation of each trademark right of this case, the Defendant first given prior notice to the Plaintiff and provided an opportunity for objection, but did not go through such procedures, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s property right.

(3) Article 64(2) of the Trademark Act, which is the basis for the registration cancellation of the instant case, is contrary to the general principles of the law that remains a legal entity unless the liquidation affairs are completed, and is unconstitutional since it infringes on the right to pursue happiness, including the people’s property rights, and the right to equality.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Article 27 of the Decree on the Registration of Patent Rights, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree on the Registration of Patent Rights, etc.") upon delegation under Article 39(3) of the Trademark Act provides that "where an application is filed for the restoration of cancelled registration and a third party with an interest in registration exists, a written consent thereof or a certified copy of a court judgment against it shall be attached to the application." Article 22 of the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on the Registration of Trademark Act provides that the method

According to the above provisions, in order to recover the cancelled registration where the trademark right is cancelled unfairly, the person shall first file an application for the recovery of the cancelled registration under Article 27 of the Decree on Registration, and in cases where the defendant's rejection disposition is issued against the application for recovery, the person shall dispute the rejection disposition through the appeal procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du9229, Nov. 22, 2002). The revocation of the trademark right is not allowed immediately without following such procedure.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case for which the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the cancellation registration of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Park Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)