2. The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff filed with the Korean Intellectual Property Office an application for the designated service business with respect to the instant registered service mark comprised of “E” (hereinafter “instant registered service mark”) under Chapter 39 as the 14 types of agency driving business, etc., and completed the registration of the service mark as F registration number G.

B. Since 2015, the Defendant’s proxy driving business used the instant mark as its business mark on newspapers, office signboards, Internet homepage (K), etc., “I,” “J” and “J” (hereinafter “instant mark”).

C. On December 28, 2015, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not use the instant registered service mark at all, and filed a trial for the revocation of the instant registered service mark with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board, and the said case continues to exist as the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2015Da5737.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Defendant, while using the instant mark identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s registered service mark, runs a business of acting on behalf of the Plaintiff as designated service business of the instant registered service mark, and infringes the Plaintiff’s service mark right by using the instant mark in the Defendant’s signboard, advertisement, etc., thereby seeking the prohibition of the said infringement against the Defendant.

B. The defendant did not use the registered service mark of this case, the defendant only runs a proxy driving business among the designated service business of the registered service mark of this case, and the defendant did not intend to infringe the plaintiff's service mark right, and if the service mark right is recognized by the number of "C", the above number shall be used for all business operators using it as telephone numbers.