TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2016Hu663 Decided August 18, 2016 ¡¼Revocation of Registration (Trademark)¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] Purport of Article 73(1)2 of the former Trademark Act In cases where a party, who has used multiple similar trademarks, registers only part of those trademarks while continuing to use unregistered trademarks in actual use, thereby making it more likely for consumers to confuse and misunderstand the source of goods as compared to when only the registered trademark is used, whether it may be deemed an exploitation of a trademark similar to a registered trademark under Article 73(1)2 of the former Trademark Act (affirmative); and to constitute a ground for revocation of trademark registration under the said provision, whether the registered trademark necessarily has to be similar to the cited trademark of another with which it is confused (negative) [2] In the case where foreign company ¡°A,¡± which has used the cited trademarks ¡° ,¡± ¡° ,¡± and ¡° ,¡± filed a suit against ¡°B,¡± the rights-holder to the registered trademark/service mark ¡° ,¡± for a registration revocation adjudication on the ground that the said registered trademark/service mark falls under Article 73(1)2 of the former Trademark Act, and revocation was granted by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB), the case holding that, by B¡¯s use of the registered trademark/service mark and trademarks in actual use¡° ,¡± ¡° ,¡± and ¡° ,¡± it became more likely for consumers to confuse and misunderstand the source of goods in relation to the cited trademarks, as compared to when only the registered trademark/service mark was used, and thus, that the registered trademark/service mark constitutes a ground for revocation of registration under the said provision

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2014Da9212 Decided August 24, 2016¡¼Loan¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2014Da235080 Decided August 17, 2016¡¼Return of Unjust Enrichment¡½