[1] The meaning of "interested person" who can request a trial to revoke trademark registration under Article 73 (6) of the Trademark Act and the standard for determining whether a trademark falls under an interested person (=the time when a trial to revoke trademark registration is rendered)

[2] In a case where Company A, which manufactures and sells clothing, etc. established in the United States, affixed a trademark similar to the registered trademark on goods such as clothes, shoes, etc. on its Internet homepage or Internet purchasing agency, and sold them in Korea, the case holding that Company A constitutes a person having a direct and realistic interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark

[1] "Interested party" under Article 73 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act, which may request a trial to revoke a trademark registration under Article 73 (1) 3, refers to a person who has a direct and realistic interest in the extinguishment of a registered trademark because it is objectively apparent that the existence of the registered trademark to be revoked may result in damage because the trademark right holder may not use the trademark identical with or similar to the registered trademark because it is asserted against the trademark right holder due to the existence of the registered trademark that is to be revoked, or that the trademark may not be used. Whether an interested

[2] Where Company A, which manufactures and sells clothing, etc. established in the United States, affixed trademark "E", "AE", and sold them in Korea on its Internet homepage or Internet purchasing agency through attaching trademark "EGLE" and "AE", the case holding that Company A, at the time of revocation of registration, provided goods of the same kind as the designated goods of the registered trademark using the trademark similar to the registered trademark in Korea at the time of revocation of registration, and it is objectively obvious that the existence of the registered trademark is likely to be damaged by being unable to use the trademark similar to the registered trademark due to the trademark's non-use of the trademark in opposition against the trademark right holder or the legal status of the trademark owner, and thus, Company A constitutes a person who

[1] Article 73 (1) 3 and (6) of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 73 (1) 3 and (6) of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2955 delivered on May 30, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1570) Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu188 delivered on April 24, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1278) Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3291 Delivered on September 14, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1764)

Ameras Ameras, Ameras, Ameras, Ameras

Defendant

April 21, 201

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on May 20, 2010 on the case No. 1861 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The registered trademark of this case

1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: May 31, 2005/ August 1, 2006/ No. 672650

2) Composition:

3) Designated goods: [Attachment] designated goods of the registered trademark of this case.

4) A trademark right holder: Defendant

B. Details of the instant trial decision

1) On August 3, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the revocation of the registration of the trademark (No. 2009Da1861) seeking the revocation of the registration on the ground that the registered trademark of this case was not used in the Republic of Korea for not less than three consecutive years before the date on which the revocation petition was filed.

2) On May 20, 2010, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute an interested party who can request a cancellation trial on the trademark registration under Article 73(6) of the Trademark Act.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the Plaintiff constitutes an interested party who can request a trial to revoke the trademark of this case

A. "Interested party" under Article 73 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act means a person who has a direct and practical interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark, as it is objectively obvious that the existence of the registered trademark to be revoked would result in damage because it would not use the trademark identical with or similar to the registered trademark because it would result in the invalidation of the trademark, or would objectively affect his/her legal status, and whether he/she is an interested party should be determined at the time of the decision (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3291 delivered on September 14, 2006).

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the evidence Nos. 3 through 9, the Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells the clothing, etc. established in the United States around 1977, and it can be acknowledged that from around 1998, the Plaintiff continued to sell the goods such as clothes, shoes, etc. on the Plaintiff’s Internet homepage (www.ae.com) or the Internet purchasing agency through the Internet purchase agency, and there is no counter-proof.

According to the above facts and facts, as at the time of the instant decision, the Plaintiff is a person who provides goods identical to the designated goods of the instant registered trademark using trademarks such as “EGLE” and “AE” similar to the instant registered trademark at the time of the instant decision, and thus, it is objectively clear that the existence of the instant registered trademark may result in damage by being unable to use a trademark similar to the instant registered trademark against the Defendant, the trademark holder, or by being unable to

Therefore, the plaintiff is a person who has a direct and realistic interest in the extinguishment of the registered trademark of this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the decision of this case, which judged differently and dismissed the plaintiff's request, is unlawful, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of revocation is accepted.

[Attachment] Designated Goods of the instant registered trademark: omitted

Judge Dok-si (Presiding Judge)