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

(a) Registration number 1)/ application date/registration decision date/registration date/registration date: C/D/ 201: Marks 3 designated goods: C/D/ 2018 wing wing analysis equipment, golf block, golf pipe, golf pipe supply equipment, golf track, golf practice straw, golf strawing equipment, golf course management equipment, golf strawing equipment, golf sturg management equipment, golf sturging equipment, golf sturging equipment, golf sturging equipment, golf sturging equipment, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, golf sturg, glarg, g

(b) Registration number 1) / filing date / registration date: F/G/H2) designated goods: The holder of the right to register the goods classified into the category of goods 3). The holder of the right to register the golf holes classified into category 28, tampers for golf use, tampers for golf use, golf loans, golf-backed showers, golf-raising type hackers, golf-employment bags, golf-employment pressers, golf-raising rooms, golf-related strings, teas, entertainment equipment, sports straws, sports equipment, sports straws, sports straws, sports strawets, ggress, gress, gress, game supplies 4): the plaintiff;

(c) A mark 1): A product using (a prior-use trademark 1), (a prior-use trademark 2), (a prior-use trademark 3), and (a prior-use trademark 4) 2: A golf machine and a golf hedging 3: Plaintiff 4: From January 2016 to the date of use:

D. 1) The Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration of the instant registered trademark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant, who is the trademark holder of the instant registered trademark, by asserting that “(i) the instant registered trademark is identical or similar to the mark of the prior registered trademark, and thus falls under Article 34(1)7 of the Trademark Act, and ② since the VIVID portion commonly included in the prior used trademarks was known to general consumers as the Plaintiff’s mark, the instant registered trademark with the same essential part should be invalidated as it falls under Article 34(1)12 or 13 of the Trademark Act.” (ii) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated as the above request for a trial to invalidate the registration of the instant registered trademark on April 5, 2019.