2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. On July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the instant registered trademark with the trademark right holder of the instant registered trademark as indicated in paragraph (b) below, with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, “The instant registered trademark falls under Article 7(1)2 and 18 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the company having special relation with C, etc. (hereinafter “C, etc.”) within Japan, and is similar to the pre-registered trademark described in paragraph (c). The Defendant filed an application for registration of the instant registered trademark with the trademark right holder, and filed an application for registration of the instant registered trademark with the knowledge that the pre-used trademark is being used by others due to economic transactional relations, etc., and the instant registered trademark should be invalidated on the grounds that it falls under Article 7(1)12 and 18 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal 201.

Prior to the filing of the instant registered trademark, prior to the application, the pre-use trademarks are known as trademarks of a specific person in Japan, but the Defendant applied for the instant registered trademark in order to use his own trademark in Korea, and it is difficult to deem that there is an unlawful purpose. Thus, the instant registered trademark does not fall under Article 7

Before the filing date of the instant registered trademark, the Defendant entered into an export and import transaction relationship with Japan, D, E, etc. The instant registered trademark is identical or similar to pre-use trademarks, marks, and designated goods, but the Defendant and the actual owner F of the instant registered trademark around August 2009.