2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

(a) Registration number 1) / filing date of the instant registered trademark (Evidence 2) / filing date of the application / renewal of the registration date: Trademark G/H/I/J 2: Marks of the agricultural products of Category 05 classified into the category of the designated goods, bean, dys, dys, pots, rice of Category 30 classified into the category of goods, rice of Category 31 classified into the category of goods, rice of Category 31 classified into the category of goods, animal feed, agricultural products seeds, and agricultural products.

B. The Plaintiffs are using the following marks in a manner indicated on the rice package: (a) the trademarks subject to verification (Evidence A 1).

1) Marks: 2) Products: Rice

C. The grounds for the instant trial decision (Evidence 1) revealed that the Plaintiff’s use of the challenged trademark does not fall under the scope of the right to the trademark registration of this case pursuant to Article 90(1)2 or 4 of the Trademark Act, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion on December 5, 2018, after examining the instant case under Article 2071 of the Trademark Act. Since the challenged trademark is similar to the instant registered trademark, the Plaintiffs’ use of the challenged trademark falls under the scope of the right to the trademark registration of this case, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ use of the challenged trademark falls under the scope of the right to the trademark of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The phrase “meri rice” or “meried rice” common to the registered trademark of this case and the trademark subject to confirmation by the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s Intervenors are used as a trademark for rice, or common use of the quality of goods.