2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(a) The Plaintiff’s registered trademark 1) filing date / registration decision date / registration date / registration date: B/C/registration date D2 January 27, 2014: The 3 designated goods classified into category 11: Electricity leasing, electric matr, electric boiler matr, electric boiler matr, electric stoves, electric stoves, nonmedical electrical appliances, nonmedical electrical bags, electric sturgs, electric sturging machine, electric temperature stoves, electric temperature stoves, electric electric temperature stoves, electric stoves, electric stoves, portable, portable, household water purifiers, electric stoves, nonmedical appliances, and electric stoves stoves for electrical type 11.

(b) The Defendant’s prior registered trademark 1) filing date/registration date/registration number: / June 4, 2010; / Trademark No. 912391 Item 2) on March 27, 2012: 3 designated goods: Electric carpets classified by category 11.

C. On January 23, 2015, the Defendant asserted that the registered trademark of this case is identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark based on earlier application, and thus, is invalid pursuant to Articles 7(1)7 and 71(1)1 of the Trademark Act. 2) On June 5, 2015, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial decision that the registered trademark of this case is similar to the registered trademark of another person, and the designated goods are identical or similar to the registered trademark of another person and thus, are null and void as they fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 7(3) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 11747, Apr. 5, 2013; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”), which was applied at the time of filing of the application for trademark registration of this case, if the applicant and the registered trademark right holder are identical at the time of filing of the application for trademark registration, the trademark of this case is not different from the other person provided for in Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act.