해시 게임 바카라

1. Case summary

1) 해시 게임 바카라 (specifically attorneys Dongmin Jeong, Sunghwan Oh, and Yeonjeong Nam and Of Counsel Gyuwan Choi) represented a company (“Company A”) charged with a criminal complaint for the alleged infringement of trademarks.

2) Factual background and the contents of indictment
①  A company holding 해시 게임 바카라, “Vitnara (빛나라)” and “Vitnara.com (빛나라닷컴)” (the “해시 게임 바카라”) filed a charge for the infringement of the 해시 게임 바카라 and initiated an application for an interim injunction against Company A. The prosecution indicted Company A and formally requested for a trial.
②  Representing Company A, 해시 게임 바카라 responded to trials to seek for invalidation of the Trademarks, confirmation of the scope of passive rights, a criminal case and an interim injunction.

2. Issues

The issue in this case was whether the 해시 게임 바카라 were invalidated since they had a reason for invalidation as a technical mark or unidentifiable mark in a relationship with lighting relating products.

3. Our argument and role

We presented several precedents relating to 해시 게임 바카라 similar to the 해시 게임 바카라, usages of the Trademark “Vitnara” and trading practices as evidence supporting our argument that the 해시 게임 바카라 were not a technical mark or a mark that could be regarded as having an ability to be identifiable in the relationship with other lighting relating products, and therefore, they should be invalidated. In addition, we claimed that the scope of rights to the 해시 게임 바카라 was different from the 해시 게임 바카라 used by Company A.

4. Summary of the Decision

​① The patent court accepted our case and determined that the 해시 게임 바카라 constituted a technical mark and should be invalidated. The holder of the 해시 게임 바카라 filed an appeal to the patent court’s decision, but the Supreme Court of Korea ruled to discontinue proceeding.
②  The Seoul Central District Court found Company A innocent on the ground that the 해시 게임 바카라 were null and void. The prosecution did not file an appeal to the district court’s decision and the decision was finally entered.

5. Implications

This case is meaningful in that ​① we had the 해시 게임 바카라 invalidated and made it possible to freely use the Trademark “Vitnara” in the lighting industry, and ② even in the situation where the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal had judged that there had been no reason for the 해시 게임 바카라 to be invalidated, we filed a lawsuit to cancel the judgment with the Patent Court and overturned the judgment to obtain the decision that there were reasons for the 해시 게임 바카라 to be invalidated and finally had the decision entered at the Supreme Court of Korea, and we obtained the decision on acquittal for the reason of the invalidation of the 해시 게임 바카라 at the criminal trial.

□ Attorneys in charge : Jeong Dong-Min, Oh Sung-Hwan, Nam Yeon-Jeong, Of Counsel Choi Gyu-Wan