beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
가. 원고의 이 사건 등록상표(갑2호증) 1) 출원일/ 등록일/ 등록번호 : C/ D/ E 2) 구 성 : 3) 지정상품 : 상품류 구분 제30류의 간장, 고추장, 된장, 자장, 장(醬 류, 청국장, 춘장
(b) Previously registered trademark (Evidence 3) 1)/ Date of registration / date of extinguishment / Registration / Number : F/ G/H/I2) previous designated goods: high trends of Category 30 in the classification of goods, booms, booms, Cheongju, Ssamju, Ssamju, Meet and Meet;
C. (1) On November 25, 2016, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff who is the trademark holder of the instant registered trademark “” in the Intellectual Property Tribunal; (b) the instant registered trademark is similar to the pre-registered trademark “; and (c) designated goods fall under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”); and (d) the registration thereof should be invalidated.
The registered trademark of this case was asserted to the purport that the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against the registered trademark of this case. (2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the said request for a trial on May 30, 2018, and the instant request for a trial on May 30, 2018 does not violate the principle of res judicata in relation to the relationship with 2014Heo6460, an appeal against the decision of refusal. Furthermore, the registered trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark of this case can be divided into the “hon,” which is a figure part, and the “hon,” which is a part with a central distinctive character, and the prior registered trademark of this case can be called and conceptualized as the “mon, Changwon,” which is a part with a central distinctive character. Accordingly, both marks are similar to the name and concept, as a whole, and the designated goods also correspond to the same. Therefore, the instant request for a trial citing the purport of Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (hereinafter referred to as the instant request for a trial of this case).
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows.