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

A. 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: C/D/E 2): Designated service business: A person entitled to registration under category 43 of service business, and coffee specialty chain business 4): Plaintiff

(b) Date of application 1)/registration date/registration number: F/G/H2): The designated goods: the defendant; the defendant; the defendant; the defendant; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff;

(c) Date of application 1)/registration date/registration number: on January 24, 2003, the mark on November 30, 2004 / No. 112422 on November 30, 204: Designated goods: 30 of the classification of goods: Conplate, marc, dryer, ice cream, early call cream, food and drink, mazzers, mazzers, non-medical sturging, comcos, carbru, carbru, 32 of beverages of Chapter 32 of this Decree; 4 of the category of food and beverage sales brokerage business; 4 of the passenger food and beverage sales brokerage business; 4 of the passenger food and beverage sales brokerage business; 4 of the passenger food and beverage sales brokerage business; 4 of the passenger food and beverage sales brokerage business;

D. (1) On May 8, 2013, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of the registration of a service mark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the registered service mark of this case is similar to the registered service mark of this case, the registered service mark of this case, the registered service mark of this case, the registered service mark of this case, and the designated service mark of this case, and thus, its registration should be invalidated under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act. (2) On May 19, 2014, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision citing the Defendant’s request for a trial on invalidation of registration of the service mark on the grounds that the registered service mark of this case falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act because the registered service mark of this case is similar

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Parties.