2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number of the instant registered service mark: C/D/E 2) designated service business: The Defendant

(b) The plaintiff's pre-use trademark 1) Gu: 2) Type of business used: Chinese food store business;

C. On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) against the Defendant, who is the holder of the instant registered service mark “” in the Intellectual Property Tribunal; and (b) since the instant registered service mark is similar to the pre-use trademark F, which is widely known in Korea, the instant registered service mark constitutes Article 7(1)9 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

The registered service mark of this case is a trademark registered for unlawful purposes such as obtaining unfair profits or intending to inflict losses with the pre-use trademark having no registered in Korea. Thus, it constitutes Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act.

Furthermore, the Defendant copied the Plaintiff’s prior use trademark known to him through a contractual relationship with the Plaintiff and applied for registration of the instant registered service mark. Thus, the registered service mark of this case constitutes Article 7(1)18 of the former Trademark Act.

2) The Plaintiff’s pre-use trademark on August 2, 2019 cannot be deemed to have been known among domestic consumers as at the filing date of the instant registered service mark, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have applied for registration of the instant registered service mark, which is a trademark identical or similar to the instant registered service mark, without a legitimate title, with the knowledge that it was used by the Plaintiff through business transaction, etc., on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for registration of the instant registered service mark was filed for the same or similar service business.