logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2017.10.20 2017허3799
거절결정(상)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) The Plaintiff’s applied trademark (Evidence A1 and 2) 1)/international registration number: the filing date of an international registration (the filing date of an application for trademark registration)/international registration number: (a) the former gender on September 10, 2014 / No. 1237350 2): 3) the designated goods classified by category 7 of goods: steam traps (Steatraps).

B. On September 1, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office violated Article 10(1) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) with respect to the international application of the trademark of this case registered with the Republic of Korea as the designated country under the Madrid Protocol concerning the International Registration of Marks, and falls under Article 6(1)7 of the former Trademark Act and Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”). The trademark of this case falls under Article 6(1)7 of the former Trademark Act as a trademark whose goods are expressed by consumers in relation to the designated goods, and thus, the trademark of this case falls under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act, which is identical to the trademark registration number of another person registered on May 29, 2013.

The notice of provisional rejection (Evidence A3) was issued to the purport that the Plaintiff submitted the written opinion and/or amendment on October 26, 2015. However, on December 23, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “Korea Intellectual Property Office”) combines “non-distinctive” and “non-distinctive” as part of the name of Stemp, and thus, does not form a new distinctive concept as a whole, even if the trademark combining these non-distinctive marks is used for designated goods, it can be identified as a trademark indicating goods related to a person’s business.

arrow