(a) Where several copies of final appeals are received at the same time with respect to a combined trial decision, the object of final appeal adjudication;

B. Whether the use of a trademark non-use is justifiable in the process of obtaining trademark rights from a trademark right holder who has moved to the United States (negative)

A. Where several appeals are dissatisfied with a case in which the appellate court has closed a concurrent trial decision in accordance with Article 121 of the Patent Act, the appeal shall take effect on the claims of each case joined with the above trial decision by filing an appeal against the trial decision, and the appeal shall not take effect on each of the combined cases, and where several appeals are filed against a combined trial decision, the subsequent appeal shall be deemed to be unlawful as a duplicate one appeal, but where several appeals are received at the same time, the multiple copies of appeals shall be deemed to be a single appeal, and each of the grounds for appeal as stated in the reasons shall be deemed to be subject to the final appeal.

B. The reason that the trademark right holder transferred to the United States takes many time during the process of taking the procedure for changing the name of registration after being transferred from the trademark right holder, and thus the trademark has not been used for more than one year on the designated goods does not constitute “justifiable reason” under Article 45(1)3 of the Trademark Act.

A. Article 121 of the Patent Act, Article 401 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Hu1 Delivered on April 9, 1985

claimant

Appellants

Ruling of the Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153 dated November 29, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

First, we judge ex officio.

According to the provisions of Articles 51, 120, 121, and 144 of the Patent Act as applied mutatis mutandis under Article 56, the trial examiner may combine two or more trials to which the parties or both or one party thereto are identical, and except as otherwise provided, the trial examiner shall terminate by a trial decision, and if a person who has received a trial decision for an appeal is dissatisfied with the procedure of an appeal under the Civil Procedure Act, within a given period, he may file an appeal with the Supreme Court within the Supreme Court. Thus, if several appeals are dissatisfied with a combined trial decision under Article 121, the court below shall file an appeal against the above combined trial decision. Thus, the appeal becomes effective as to each of the cases to which the above trial decision was combined, and as a result, within the extent of dissatisfaction with the grounds of appeal (Articles 395, 401 of the Civil Procedure Act), the court below may not dismiss each of the above appeals by deeming the remaining grounds of appeal to be unlawful as one of the grounds of appeal (the remaining grounds of appeal to which the court below received two or its registration number was omitted.)

(1) The reason that the non-party, who is the trademark holder of this case, moves to the United States and the respondent transferred the trademark from the above non-party, who resides in the United States, and the procedure for changing the name of registration was taken place. Thus, the reason that the trademark of this case has not been used for not less than one year continuously on the designated goods does not constitute "justifiable reason" for the use of the trademark under Article 45 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit

(2) The fact that the cancellation of trademark registration on the ground of the existence of a reason under Article 45 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act has been filed and the prior registration of a request for a trial has been made, and the use of the registered trademark on the designated goods has no effect on the ground of revocation of trademark registration (Article 45 (3) of the Trademark Act). According to the records, it is recognized that the respondent has received the trademark right at the time of original sale after the prior registration of the request for a trial (each of November 3, 1981), and even if the trademark right holder uses the trademark after the transfer of the trademark right, it does not affect the ground for revocation of trademark registration which occurred due to the failure of the trademark owner to use the trademark of this case on the designated goods for more than one year without any justifiable reason. From the contrary point of view,

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)

The presiding judge is unable to sign and seal because he is going through overseas business trip. Justices Lee Jong-soo.