(a) Registration number 1)/ filing date/registration date of the instant registered service mark 1) / : service business registered E/F/G2) designated service business: The right holder of the right, including the Plaintiffs, who are the right holder of the instant service business, such as the throughclow-only restaurant business, cafeteria, restaurant business, general restaurant business, general restaurant business, general restaurant business, food preparation and procurement business, food supply business, sONEX business, ready-ston restaurant business, ready-ston restaurant business, thrownton restaurant business, carpet restaurant business, food presentation agency business, food production agency business, carpetia business, carpet restaurant business, and Korean food store business under Chapter 43 classification of service business:

(b) The entry of the pre-registered service marks 2 to 4 and the pre-registered service marks 1 to 3 are omitted respectively, which are not subject to specific comparison with the pre-registered service marks 1.

1) Registration number / filing date / registration date : H/I/J 2) previous service business: 3) designated service business classified as simple restaurant business, simple restaurant business, tourist restaurant business, Lestop business, plastic restaurant business, plastic restaurant business, plastic restaurant business, accelerator service restaurant business, accelerator service restaurant business, food presentation business, general restaurant business, etc. 4): K:

C. On January 4, 2018, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff on January 4, 2018, the registered service mark of this case was wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; and (b) the same applies to the registered service mark of this case.

(2) On December 21, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration by asserting that the registration should be invalidated as it falls under Article 7(1)7 and Article 8(1) of the former Trademark Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da1578, Feb. 21, 2018). On the ground that “The designated service business of the instant registered service mark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act in relation to the prior registered service mark 1, and the registration should be invalidated.” The remaining designated service business does not fall under Articles 7(1)7 and 8(1) of the former Trademark Act, and thus there is no ground for invalidation of registration.”