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

A. The Defendant’s registered trademark (Evidence A2) 1)/ the filing date/registration number: B/C/D2: The former designated goods: B/D2: as shown in [attached Form]. B. The Plaintiff’s mark subject to confirmation (Evidence A1) 1: 2-use service business: carpet service providing drinks, such as tea and coffee

C. (1) On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) against the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant registered trademark; (b) the text portion of the instant registered trademark does not have distinctiveness with respect to the designated goods; and (c) the part of the challenged mark and the “READB” common to the instant registered trademark is used as a trademark or designated goods indicating in a common way the nature of the designated goods of the instant registered trademark; (d) thus, the challenged mark falls under Article 90(1)2 or 4 of the Trademark Act and does not fall under the scope of the right to the instant registered trademark.

2) The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board asserted to the purport that “responding to the scope of a scope of a patent right against the challenged mark.” The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board held the Plaintiff’s above request for a trial to confirm the scope of a patent right, and held the mark subject to confirmation on December 8, 2017 can be understood as “responding research institute” or “responding laboratory.” However, it is difficult to view that the used service business’s quality, efficacy, use, etc. is a common quality, efficacy, use, etc. generally used by the used service business beyond suggesting or emphasizing the quality, efficacy, use, etc. of the used service business, and it is difficult to view that the service business itself was perceived to refer to the usage service business itself as a result of the transactional name, etc., and thus, it does not constitute a technical mark under Article 90(1)2 of the Trademark Act or a public-use mark

Furthermore, the registered trademark of this case and the challenged mark are different from the appearance, but they are identical or similar to the name and concept.