2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

(a) Date of application/registration/registration number of the Defendant’s registered service mark 1 of this case: C/D/ service mark registration E2 of the former: Passenger transport business, driving agency business, proxy driving brokerage business, proxy driving chain business, automobile transport business, car rental business, car delivery business, freight delivery business, goods delivery business, car delivery business, and cargo transport business, classified into service categories 39;

B. The Plaintiff’s mark 1): (A prior-use mark 1), (a prior-use mark 2), (a prior-use mark 3), (a prior-use mark 4), (a prior-use mark 5), (a prior-use mark 6), (b) a prior-use mark 7), F’s 2588; and (c) a log file (20 seconds) of a commercial broadcast 258 of F (a prior-use mark 7) are as follows: “mentor-F’s left or left are equally the same number 2588, 2588, 2588, 2588, 2588, and 2588, all of which are the same, while at least 2588, 2588, 2588, 2588 (a prior-use mark 8) a substitute driver’s service business:

C. (1) On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) against the Defendant in the Intellectual Property Tribunal; and (b) the registered service mark of this case was wholly amended by the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same applies).

(2) On March 21, 2017, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s above request for a trial on invalidation of registration by asserting that the registration should be invalidated on the ground that the registered service mark falls under Article 6(1)7 and Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da3318, Mar. 21, 2017).

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, and each entry number of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 19 is a number.