1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) Number 1 of the applied trademark in this case / filing date of the application: B/C2: 3 of the designated goods: television receiver of the category 9 of the goods;

B. On February 9, 2018, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, upon the Plaintiff’s application, rendered a decision to reject the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that “The trademark at issue constitutes a mark indicating in a common way the raw materials, mode of production, etc. of designated goods, which is recognized as the next generation’s transpiction of “OLD” as the next generation’s transpiction of “telLD” as the designated goods, and it is inappropriate for a specific person to have exclusive rights. Therefore, the trademark at issue falls under Article 33(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act.” (2) The Plaintiff filed a petition for an appeal with the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board as 2018 won and 144 of the Trademark Act, but the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s appeal on the same ground as the above decision of rejection on November 5, 2019, deeming that the trademark at issue fell under Article 33(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act and the use of distinctiveness under Article 33(2) of the Trademark Act.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry and video of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. “The applied trademark,” which is the trademark in the instant case, constitutes a lighting mark commercialized through Plaintiff’s technical investment, marketing, etc. since before 2013, and cannot be deemed as identical or similar to “OLD”, and thus, cannot be deemed as a technical mark.

B. As recognized in the instant trial decision, the trademark of this case is recognized as the mark indicating the source of the Plaintiff’s products, since it is widely known from the trade industry to the Plaintiff’s products.

C. Since the trademark applied in this case is recognized as distinctive character in relation to the designated goods, it does not fall under Article 33(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act.