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

A. 1) Date/application number B/C 2: 3) Designated goods of category 25 of the product classification: the applicant: the deceased; the applicant; the deceased; the deceased et al.; the deceased et al.; the deceased et al.; the deceased et al.; the deceased et al.; the deceased et al.; the deceased et al.; the deceased et al.; the deceased et al.; the plaintiff et al.; the plaintiff et al.; the plaintiff et al.; the plaintiff et al.; the plaintiff et al.; the plaintiff et al.; the plaintiff et al.; the plaintiff et al.; the plaintiff et al.; the plaintiff et al.

(b) Date of application 1)/registration date/registration number : 3) Designated goods of Category D/ E/F 2: trademark right holder of the trademark right: (a) household goods of Category 25 classified into goods, single, reflective sportss, booms, influences, side paintings, knz Apknis, straws, sandbs, sandbs, straws for women, slurgs, shoess, new straws, new straws, new straws and accessories, new straws and accessories for women, new straws for women, physical shoes, newborns and brts for infants, work shoes, grheat, grheat, commercialization,

C. On November 4, 2013, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to refuse the registration of the applied trademark of this case on the ground that “the trademark of this case cannot be registered because it falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act in relation to the pre-registered trademark” (1). (2) The Plaintiff claimed a trial seeking the revocation of the above decision of refusal before the Intellectual Property Tribunal.

After examining the above case of request for a trial as 2013 won8576, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on January 7, 2015 on the ground that “The trademark applied for a trademark of this case cannot be registered as it falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act in relation to the prior registered trademark, and the refusal decision of this case rejecting the registration of the trademark applied for a trademark of this case is lawful.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry and video of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and purport of whole pleading

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act because the external appearance, name, and concept are different in comparison with the prior registered trademark.

Therefore, the trademark of this case is registered.