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

(a) The registration number 1)/ the filing date/registration date of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark 1) / the filing date of the trademark registration / the filing date: Class 3 of the trademark registration : clothing, shoes, sports clothes, knives, knives, carckets, carckets, Cheongknk, Cheongknz, within the category of goods (speed clothes, nitrowegs, watchers, KONs, knives, knives, knives.

B. Defendant’s prior-registered service mark 1) registration number / application date / registration date: F/G/H 2) former service business: Advertising publishing business under Category 35 of service business classification; sales business under Category 35 of the service business; sales business under bank / wallets; sales brokerage business under line / extra-board (excluding wholesale business, door-to-door sales agency business, clothes/sweet / Shirts sales brokerage business; sales agency business under line / pre-registered services; sales agency business of complete, clothing sales, clothing sales agency business; sales agency business; clothing sales business; clothing sales business; clothing sales business; clothing sales business; infant uniforms wholesale business; children’s uniforms sales agency business; chip sales agency business; chip sales agency business; ninik sales agency business;

C. On May 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff on May 27, 2015; and (b) on the instant registered trademark, the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same applies)

(2) On March 31, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the registration by asserting that the registration should be invalidated as it falls under Article 7(1)7 (2) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da3318). On March 31, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial ruling accepting the above request for a trial (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trial ruling”) on the ground that the registered trademark of this case is similar to the designated service business of the instant prior-registered service mark, on the ground that there is a possibility that ordinary consumers or traders may confuse the origin of the instant product.

The judgment before remand (2017Heo3263) and the judgment of remand (2017Hu1984) 1.