2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. 1) The filing date and the application number of the trademark in this case: The designated goods constituting No. 40-2010-35809 (2) on July 8, 2010: 3): The applicant is as shown in the attached Form; 4) the applicant:

(b) Composition of pre-use trademark 1: 2) Goods used: Paint-Apro, Skin cosmetic 3 users: The defendant’s assistant intervenor;

C. On July 8, 2010, the Plaintiff, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) filed an objection on January 29, 2013 following the instant decision (the reason: The trademark applied in this case is similar to the pre-use trademark and filed for an illegal purpose; thus falls under Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act); and the decision to refuse trademark registration [the reason: (a) the decision to refuse trademark registration (the decision of refusal in this case is based on the reasons stated in the written decision of objection as of January 29, 2013; hereinafter “the decision of refusal in this case”); and (b) the Plaintiff on March 5, 2013, seeking revocation of the decision of refusal in this case (No. 2013 won1746); and (c) the Patent Tribunal on June 29, 2014; and (d) the purport of the instant decision of refusal in this case, which does not constitute the Plaintiff’s claim for adjudication under Article 7(12 subparag.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (i) the pre-use trademark is not recognized as a trademark of a specific person in Hong Kong prior to the filing of the application for the trademark of this case; (ii) the applied trademark of this case is not an imitated trademark; and (iii) the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have an unlawful purpose with respect to the application for the trademark of this case; and therefore, the applied trademark of this case does not fall under Article

3. Whether the registered trademark of this case constitutes Article 7 (1) 12 of the Trademark Act

A. Article 7(1)12 of the relevant legal doctrine is recognized as indicating the goods of a specific person by domestic or foreign consumers.