logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2015.11.13 2015허3061
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. 1) Date of application/registration date/registration date/registration number of renewal/: B/ C/C/D2/2 of February 27, 2009: 3) Designated goods: Infant uniforms, sports air conditioners, Cheongitts, Cheongitts, panty, Switzerlands, Swetts, tank towers, twitts, double-ends, clothing 4): The Plaintiff

B. On January 14, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition for revocation of registration with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the ground that “The registered trademark of this case shall be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act, since the trademark right holder, exclusive licensee, and non-exclusive licensee had not been used in the Republic of Korea for all the designated goods for at least three consecutive years before the filing date of the petition for trial.” (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the above request for adjudication and failed to prove that “the Plaintiff properly used the registered trademark of this case within three years before the filing date of the petition for trial,” and thus, the registered trademark of this case shall be revoked as it falls under Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act.”

[Reasons for Recognition] A.1, 24, 26 Evidence, purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, a registered trademark right holder of this case, directly or through E, uses the registered trademark of this case in relation to the clothes, etc. of its designated goods within three years prior to the filing date of the instant request for a trial, and the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act, and thus, the decision otherwise determined is unlawful.

B. In the instant case, the Plaintiff had the registered trademark of this case before January 14, 2014, which was the date of the instant petition for a trial.

arrow