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

가. 이 사건 등록서비스표 1) 출원일/ 등록일/ 등록번호: C/ D/ E 2) 구성: 3) 지정서비스업: 서비스업류 구분 제43류의 간이식당업, 아이스크림 전문점업, 레스토랑업, 바서비스업, 뷔페식당업, 서양음식점업, 셀프서비스식당업, 스낵바업, 식당체인업, 음식조리대행업, 제과점업, 일본음식점업, 주점업, 카페업, 커피전문점업, 패스트푸드식당업, 한식점업, 일반음식점업, 휴게음식점업 4) 등록권리자: 피고

나. 확인대상표장 1) 구성: 2) 사용서비스업: 간이식당업, 아이스크림 전문점업, 레스토랑업, 바서비스업, 뷔페식당업, 서양음식점업, 셀프서비스식당업, 스낵바업, 식당체인업, 음식조리대행업, 제과점업, 일본음식점업, 주점업, 카페업, 커피전문점업, 패스트푸드식당업, 한식점업, 일반음식점업, 휴게음식점업 3 사용자: 원고

C. On January 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the instant registered service mark on the grounds that the challenged mark and the instant registered service mark are not similar in appearance, name, and concept (No. 2018No. 209). Thus, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s trial decision on March 25, 2019 on the ground that the marks subject to confirmation are different from the trademark subject to confirmation on March 25, 2019 (No. 2018No. 209) but the appearance of the instant registered service mark is different from the trademark subject to confirmation on March 25, 2019. However, both marks are similar in terms of the concept of name as “snow fact-finding” due to the “fact-finding.” Since both the service business using the challenged mark and the designated service business of the instant registered service mark are identical in terms of “simplified restaurant business, Arabic specialty business,” both of the registered service marks.

(hereinafter “instant adjudication decision”). 【No ground for recognition” exists.