A. The Plaintiff is a company established on August 11, 197 and engaged in the production and sale of learning sites, including “refluence study,” and is a service mark holder of the registered service mark, such as the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant service mark”) as indicated in the attached Table 1.

B. On October 29, 2009, the Defendant was established for the purpose of general private teaching institute education service business, lifelong educational facility operation business, etc. under the trade name, “stock company itself”.

Since then, until July 2014, the Defendant operated the “Sro” and “Sro” under the domain name “www. Sro.ac,” providing Internet lectures to acquire the certificate of qualification related to lifelong education, and used the “Sro” and “Sro” as the Defendant’s business mark, for instance, operating the “Sro Lifelong Education Center” providing the above services until now.

(hereinafter “instant mark”). [Evidence] without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, each entry in Gap evidence 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the service mark right has been infringed

A. Whether the service mark is similar or not, 1) In the case of each service mark containing the part of “Sro” among the respective service marks of this case (hereinafter “instant service mark”). The service marks of this case, which are the remaining service marks, are “the English service mark of this case”.

A service mark which cannot be recognized as being indivisible to the extent that it is natural in the transaction to separately observe each constituent part of the service mark is not always called and conceptualized by the entire constituent part, but simply "the constituent part capable of performing independent functions to distinguish one's own services" can be briefly named and conceptualized. In the event two or more titles or concepts occur in a single service mark, if either of them is identical or similar to another's service mark.