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. 1) Registration number/application date/registration date: Trademark B/C/D 2): The designated goods: The Plaintiff
(b) Goods using the challenged mark 1): fishing lines;
C. On April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant for a trial to confirm the scope of rights by asserting that the challenged mark falls under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark, since the instant registered trademark and the challenged mark are similar to each other. (2) After examining the challenged mark under Article 51(1)2 of the Trademark Act, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for a trial to confirm the scope of rights by asserting that the challenged mark falls under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark. (3) On September 26, 2014, the challenged mark indicated in the manner of common use of the quality and efficacy of the goods under Article 51(1)2 of the Trademark Act as a simple and common mark under Article 6(1)6 of the Trademark Act in the “SUPERININE”, and thus, the challenged mark does not fall under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The summary of grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision
A. The registered trademark of this case and the marks subject to confirmation are both recognized as VX, and the marks are identical or similar to one another, and the goods using the designated goods of the trademark of this case are identical or similar to those of the designated goods of the trademark of this case. Thus, the marks subject to confirmation belong to the scope of rights of the trademark of this case.
B. The letter portion of the registered trademark of this case has distinctiveness in itself, and even if not, it is recognized as expressing the plaintiff's goods among consumers in the fishing industry, and thus has distinctiveness.
C. Therefore, this conclusion should be revoked as it is unlawful in the instant trial decision.
3. Determination
(a) the challenged mark;