logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2019.08.30 2018허6191
등록취소(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. On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that “The registered service mark of this case as indicated in the following B is identical to the designated service business by the non-exclusive licensee C (hereinafter “C”) using it in a service business that is not identical to the designated service business, and thus, causes confusion as to sources in relation to the subject trademark of this case, and thus, the trademark registration should be revoked as it falls under Article 119(1)2 of the Trademark Act.” The Plaintiff filed a request for a trial to revoke the trademark registration of the registered service mark of this case against the Defendant, who is the holder of the registered service mark of this case, as the Intellectual Property Tribunal 2018Da7766 (hereinafter “instant request for a trial”).

(2) On June 29, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for the instant trial on the ground that “The registered service mark of this case is the filing date of the instant registered service mark under Article 119(1)2 of the Trademark Act, since it cannot be deemed that the subject trademark was perceived as the source mark of a specific person’s service business, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a concern for misconceptions about the quality of service business or confusion about its source. Therefore, Article 73(1)8 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 11113, Dec. 2, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall apply to the instant request for trial. Therefore, the determination by the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board by applying Article 119(1)2 of the Trademark Act in this case is practically identical to the contents of Article 73(1)8 of the former Trademark Act and Article 119(1)2 of the current Trademark Act.”

B. The Defendant’s registered service mark (Evidence A2 and 3) registration number/application date/registration date: Service mark registration D/E/F registration: The designated service business is a Japanese food restaurant business in Chapter 43 classified by service business.

arrow