logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.08.12 2014가합103553
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion was registered on August 18, 2003 as the trademark right holder of the trademark "EASYGLUCO (hereinafter "the registered trademark of this case"). The defendant produced and sold the trademark identical to the registered trademark of this case by attaching it to the blood cryp, etc. from around 2009 to the date.

The above act of the defendant constitutes trademark infringement of the plaintiff's trademark right under Article 66 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 200 million won equivalent to the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the

B. When a trial decision invalidating a trademark registration becomes final and conclusive, the trademark right is deemed to have never existed from the beginning, unlike when a trial decision invalidating the trademark registration becomes final and conclusive, or when the trademark right is cancelled (Article 71(3) of the Trademark Act). According to the overall purport of the statement and oral argument as to the statement and evidence Nos. 71(2) of the Trademark Act, the Defendant filed against the Plaintiff on January 19, 2015, and the instant registered trademark constitutes a trademark with the character of designated goods recognized as “the use of the registered trademark is an easily brupted so,” or without other distinctive character, and thus, its registration shall be invalidated pursuant to Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act, asserting to the purport that the registered trademark of this case is invalid. The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the above request for a trial to invalidate the registration of the registered trademark of this case, and on August 7, 2015, the registered trademark of this case constitutes a trademark related to the use of the designated goods by the Defendant’s common use of the designated goods under Article 6(1).

arrow