A. The business of management of a language institute, the business of management of a language correction institute, and the business of guidance for language.

The plaintiff's trademark right was established on October 6, 2014 for the purpose of the education service business, Internet education service, and Internet education content business, and is the trademark right holder with the following contents:

(2) The Plaintiff used the instant registered trademark for online French education services from March 2015. The Plaintiff used the instant registered trademark for online French education services.

/ The filing date/registration number: The filing date/registration number of the Plaintiff’s designated goods or the designated service business owner: The Plaintiff’s designated goods or the designated service business owner: Sicker site, printing paper, penology, bags, bags, paper bags, bags, school supplies, books for school use, printed time table, paper posters, carbliers, posters, posters, teaching materials (excluding organizations), books, books, books, periodicals, study books, printed materials (excluding books and periodicals), and class 41 books: Private teaching institute business, education and information provision business, language education guidance business, language education school management business, language instruction business, private teaching institute business, foreign language education institute operation business, kindergarten education institute business, school management business, school education business, Internet education institute business, Internet education institute business, Internet education course business, Internet education program establishment business, Internet education-related education program establishment business, 30 teaching contents and communication contents business, and 41 books and periodicals.

The Defendant, from around December 2017, provides online French education services, uses the marks indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant infringement marks”) or “F” as marks.

[Ground of recognition] The Defendant’s registered trademark of this case, as seen in the above facts, as it did not dispute, described in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (if a serial number is included, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and as to the claim for prohibition of infringement of trademark rights as a whole.