beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff’s registered trademark (hereinafter “instant registered trademark”) indicated on the following (B) (hereinafter “instant registered trademark”).
(2) On April 5, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of the registration against the Defendant, who is the trademark holder of the instant registered trademark, by asserting that “The registered trademark of this case,” in relation to the pre-use trademarks listed in the following (c) (hereinafter “pre-use trademarks”), falls under Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”). The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter “the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board”) shall be held as 2017Da1766, and it cannot be deemed that the data submitted by the Plaintiff until the completion of the instant trial are known as a trademark of a specific person either domestically or abroad at the time of the application for the instant registered trademark, and there is no reasonable ground to suspect that the Defendant had any unlawful purpose in using the instant registered trademark, and thus, dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for a trial on the grounds that it falls under Article 7(12 of the former Trademark Act.”
B. Defendant’s registered trademark 1) registration number / application date / registration date / preferential right date: The registered trademark C/D/E/E/2 January 3, 2014: the designated goods as shown in the attached Form 3: (c) Plaintiff’s pre-use trademark 1) products: the Plaintiff’s pre-use trademark : (c) products using a motor vehicle : the fact that there is no dispute over a motor vehicle [based on recognition], Gap’s evidence 1-3 (if there is a serial number, the entire purport of each entry and the whole purport of pleadings
2. The parties' arguments and the issues of this case
A. The plaintiff asserts that the registered trademark of this case falls under Article 7 (1) 12 of the former Trademark Act, and the registration should be invalidated for the following reasons.
1. The similarity of trademarks.