2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. On November 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a trial to confirm the scope of the right of the instant registered service mark with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2015Da5406) as follows. (2) However, on January 4, 2017, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a trial to confirm the scope of the right of the instant registered service mark, since the mark subject to confirmation is identical to the “market business” in the designated service of the instant registered service mark, and the mark subject to confirmation falls under the Plaintiff’s request for a trial to confirm the scope of the right of the instant registered service mark.

(b) The registration number / the filing date of the instant registered service mark / the filing date of an application: (General trademark): The designated service business entity: Smarket business classified by service business category No. 35 and the service mark right holder, such as large-scale discount business: the Plaintiff;

(c) The organization of the challenged mark: Smarket service provider: The applicant 's ground for recognition' does not conflict with each other, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The key issue of this case argues that the challenged mark falls under Article 51 (1) 1 of the former Trademark Act and does not fall under the scope of rights of the registered service mark of this case, as it is a trademark indicating the challenged mark in a common way F, the trade name of the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Defendant combines the word “E” and the word “Damar” with the word “E”, and ordinarily uses “F”, which is the Plaintiff’s trade name, depending on the body and color of two parts.