2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. The filing date and the application number of the trademark 1 of this case: 16./ 40-2013-013-084022: 3) Designated goods: Paper paper, printing type, software program and data processing program, book, book, book, book-processing box, telephone number, book-keeping box, photo-printed photograph, photo-satisfic book, satisfic book-making tool, graphic reproduction (a double-produced picture) in category 16 of the product category

(b) Date of application 1)/ Date of registration/registration number: 1/11, 200/ September 30, 2000 / No. 40-4780532) of the registered trademark: Designated goods: Type 16 of the classification of goods: The Dial Culture and Arts Planning Research Council, incorporated by the holder of the right to register, for example, paper, printed activity, book, book, book, picture, picture, book, color, bromatic, photograph 4) of the classification of goods:

(c) Date of application 1)/ Date of registration/registration number: On June 11, 199, 190/ August 16, 2000, 40-062974(2)): Designated service Business 3: The entertainment information provision business, book publishing business, book publishing business, cooking and map business, school dormitory business, culture and arts education business, culture and arts planning business, camping and arts planning business, camping leave service business, meeting progress business, and meeting progress business 4): The Dial Culture and Arts Planning Research Council, an incorporated association:

D. (1) On November 7, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of rejection as to the Plaintiff’s applied trademark of this case on the ground that “the trademark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act because its prior registered trademark, prior registered service mark, and marks, designated goods, and services are similar thereto.” (2) On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for an appeal against the aforementioned decision of rejection with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal (2014 Won7584), and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a request on July 2, 2015, as the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the prior registered trademark and its name may mislead and confuse general consumers as being the origin of goods. Accordingly, the trademark is similar to the designated goods or similar thereto, without examining the similarity between the prior registered service mark and the prior registered service mark.