A. The Plaintiff is a trademark right holder of the registered trademark below (hereinafter “instant registered trademark”).

1) Registration number / filing date/registration date: (a) designated service business: Type-type wholesale business, type retail business, type retail business, type sales agency business, class-type sale agency business, package cosmetics sales agency business, package-to-door sales agency business, package-to-door sales agency business, package-to-face sales agency business, package-to-face sales agency business, package-to-face sales agency business, package-door cosmetics sales agency business, package-to-face sales business, package-to-face sales business, package-to-face sales business, package-to-face sales business, package-to-face retail business, package-to-face retail business, pet feed retail business, complete-to-face sales agency business, pet-gu sales agency business, package-to-face sales business, pet-gu sales agency business, pet-to-face sales business, pet-gu sales business, pet animal sales business, pet-to-face sales business (a designated service omitted).

B. The Defendant’s position and mark use 1) The Defendant is a company engaged in the manufacturing business, wholesale and retail business, siren business, etc. of malicious glass, etc., and the Defendant’s business of inviting a member store from the end of July 2016 to sell the name of the member store after recruiting a member store from the end of the time of July 2016 (hereinafter “human-type sales business, etc.”).

(htp) The Internet homepage (htp:/Sgd./) established for the business and operations thereof.

com) The marks listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant marks”) are the marks listed in the separate sheet.

A. 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, Party A’s entries in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and Party A’s Evidence Nos. 7-1 through 3, Party A’s Evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant used the instant mark identical or similar to the instant registered trademark for business identical or similar to the designated service business of the instant registered trademark, thereby infringing on the right to the instant registered trademark. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged not to use the instant mark as indicated in the purport of the claim.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was closed on January 31, 2018, and thus, the Defendant violated the right to the registered trademark of this case.