beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 6, 2015, the Plaintiff Company: (a) rendered the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2015Da5181 against the Defendant on November 6, 2015; (b) the Defendant’s registered service mark as indicated in the foregoing paragraph is not used in the Republic of Korea for three consecutive years before the date of a request for trial by a registered service right holder, an exclusive licensee, or a non-exclusive licensee on a designated service business; and (c) thus, the same applies to the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb
(2) On November 23, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the Plaintiff Company’s appeal on the ground that “The registered service mark of this case is recognized to have been properly used in the restaurant chain business, etc., which is a designated service business in Korea within three years prior to the date on which the Plaintiff Company’s registration was requested, and thus does not fall under Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act.”
(b) Defendant’s registration number/ application date/registration date of the instant registered service mark: Designated service business - restaurant chain business, food cooking agency business, fashion food restaurant business, theater food service business, food presentation business, general restaurant business, food procurement business, and food procurement business, which are classified into service business categories 43;
C. The Defendant’s assertion 1 (No. 5-4, 5, 6 of the evidence No. 5-5), the mark of the actual use of the instant case 2 (No. 13) of the mark of the instant real use 3 (No. 14) of the instant real use mark 3 (No. 13) of the instant real use mark 3 (No. 14) of the instant real use mark 1, 2, and 3, and evidence No. 5-4, 5, 6, and No. 13 and 14 of the instant real use mark, and the purport of the entire pleadings, all of the arguments
2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful
A. As alleged by the parties and the summary of the 1st issue of the instant case, the Plaintiff Company is a legal entity separate from the Defendant and thus, regardless of the Defendant’s intent.