(a) Registration number 1 of the instant registered trademark (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s trademark”): The filing date/registration date of No. 1760223): The designated goods on June 13, 198; and the designated goods on August 24, 1989: the Plaintiff: the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff;

B. On May 13, 199 and July 3, 2009, the Plaintiff applied for the renewal registration of the trademark right duration of each Plaintiff and renewed the trademark right duration on June 24, 199 and November 2, 2009.

C. The Plaintiff manufactures oral products with the Plaintiff’s trademark, and the Defendant also sells the attached mark 1 (hereinafter “Defendant’s mark” and each product indicated in the attached Table 2, with the Defendant’s mark attached thereto, attached to each part of the products listed in the attached Table 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of whole pleadings, as to Gap's evidence 2 to 8, 12, and 13 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The defendant's mark attached to the defendant's product is identical or similar to the plaintiff's trademark, and the defendant's act of selling the defendant's product constitutes trademark infringement under Article 66 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act, and constitutes confusion as to the product under Article 2 (1) (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

3. We examine the allegation of infringement of trademark right first of all as to the cause of the claim.

A. Legal doctrine or a mark identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark is an act infringing another person’s trademark right if it is used as a trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the other person’s registered trademark. On the other hand, even if it is used as a mark identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark, it is not for the indication of goods’ origin

At this time, the mark is used as a trademark and goods.