logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.13 2018가합528594
서비스표권 침해금지
Text

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff’s registration number/application date/registration decision date/registration date/registration date of the instant registered service mark: The designated service business: Marriage counseling business, marriage information business, marriage brokerage business, and international marriage brokerage business relationship under Chapter 45 classified by service business category: F, which was registered upon application of the instant registered service mark, filed on March 31, 2017, G, H on July 3, 2017, and H, on November 1, 2017, is the holder of the instant registered service mark right of the instant registered service mark, as H transferred in succession the right to registered service mark of this case to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2017.

The defendant using the defendant's mark uses the defendant's trademark B in his trade name, and uses the marks listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list in the outside, inside, website, B, and Lone Stargs, etc. of the defendant's store for counseling related to the plan and preparation for marriage type planning, marriage information service, holding of the wac, and the wacingppp business.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s act of using the Plaintiff’s emblem, as a whole, constitutes an act of infringing the Plaintiff’s trademark right as to the Plaintiff’s registered service mark of this case, and thus, seek prohibition of infringement and payment of compensation for damages, as stated in the purport of the claim.

Defendant’s registered service mark falls under Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”), and there is reason for invalidation of registration.

Therefore, the plaintiff's exercise of rights based on this can not be allowed as abuse of rights.

From around 2006, the Defendant used, from around the Republic of Korea without the purpose of unfair competition, a mark, or a mark (hereinafter “pre-use mark”) (hereinafter “pre-use mark”) for the consulting business, trading business, lending business, etc., and the aforementioned pre-use mark is recognized as indicating to consumers the business of a specific person.

arrow