2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 2, 2008, with respect to the trademark/service mark (hereinafter “instant registered trademark”), the Plaintiff filed an application for the designation of the designated service business as a type of dental assistance business, dental practice, dental correction business, medical machinery and apparatus leasing business (related to dental practice), medical equipment leasing business (related to dental practice), medical information providing business (related to dental practice), and completed the registration of the trademark/service mark on January 4, 201.

B. From February 2010, the Defendant is a person who operates dental business using the same mark as “” (hereinafter “instant Defendant mark”) in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu.

C. On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial on confirmation of the scope of active rights by asserting that the instant Defendant mark falls under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark, and that the instant Defendant mark falls under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark, and the said trial decision became final and conclusive as is, on May 1, 2015, on the ground that “the instant Defendant mark is similar to the instant registered trademark and the use service is identical or similar to the designated service business.”

The Defendant et al. filed a petition against the Plaintiff for an invalidation trial against the instant registered trademark under the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2016Da378, but the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the instant registered trademark on June 7, 2016 on the ground that its distinctiveness is recognized, and the said trial decision became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s trademark right by using the instant Defendant mark, which falls under the scope of the Plaintiff’s right to the instant registered trademark, for dental business, and thus, the Plaintiff was wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016.