logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2016.05.04 2015허6763
등록무효(상)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration number 1)/ filing date/registration date: D/ E/F2: 3) Designated goods: households classified by category 20, and non-metallic household accessories 4): The plaintiffs;

(b) 1) Registration number / Date of application / Date of registration: No. 5323/ 54, Oct. 23, 2001; c) Designated goods classified as category 11: Electric bed, Non-Medical Electric Fences, Electricity ioners, electricity strings, electricity strings, bedlepers, electricity strings, electricity strings, electric shocks, electric shocks, and electric shocks: 2A) registration number of the prior registered trademark / date of application / Date of registration: No. 4986/200, Jun. 2, 2000: 200 category of the designated goods: No. 20 type of goods; No. 100 type of goods; No. 20 type of goods registered; No. 3144; No. 20 type of goods registered; No. 10/30 type of goods; No. 44; No.

(c) Composition of pre-use trademark 1: Products using stone 2) : The defendant; the defendant;

D. On November 28, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiffs on November 28, 2014, stating that “The registered trademark of this case is similar to the registered trademark of this case, and the pre-use trademarks, marks, and designated goods, which have acquired well-knownness, may cause misconceptions as to the source, and thus cause confusion as to the consumers. In addition, the registered trademark of this case was registered for an illegal purpose of taking advantage of the economic credit incorporated into the pre-use trademark, and thus its registration is null and void.” (2) On September 2, 2015, the Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial with the purport that “the registered trademark of this case is clearly recognized as indicating the goods of the claimant between consumers as at the time of the decision to register the trademark.”

arrow