2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Defendant’s registered trademark (Evidence 3) 1)/ Date of the filing of the registration decision / the date of registration / the date of registration / Registration : D/ 19 March 19, 2015 / E/ F2): 3 designated goods - The goods of category 25, which are type 3.

(b) Composition of pre-use trademark 1: 2) Goods used: clothing, pacta, cap 3 users: the plaintiffs

C. On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for a invalidation trial on the instant registered trademark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant, who is a trademark holder of the instant registered trademark, on April 24, 2015, stating that “The instant registered trademark is identical or similar to the prior used trademark that was widely known as the Plaintiffs’ trademark at the time of the decision of registration, and the designated goods are also identical or similar to the goods used as the prior used trademark, and it is highly likely for consumers to mislead or confuse the Defendant’s goods as the goods of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, it constitutes Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) and filed for a invalidation trial on the instant registered trademark on August 23, 2016, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the petition for a retrial trial on the instant registered trademark on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone does not constitute “the grounds for the instant registered trademark under Article 17(1) of the former Trademark Act.”

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. For the following reasons, Article 7(1) of the former Trademark Act is applicable to the registered trademark of this case: (a) the gist of the plaintiffs' arguments and the 1st shareholder's arguments.