2. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff among the litigation costs.

A. Application Number 1)/ Filing date of the application number of the trademark 1 of this case: D/E2) previous : 3) the designated goods classified as Category 25 of the product: clothing, shoes, sports cycles, one clothes, knicks, clothes, wallets (including leather/pocket), cap and pandeker, cap and pant, clothes, clothing knick, rain, hump, hump, protective knick (class 4) applicant: The trademark of this case applied for the E date F, but was changed to the Plaintiff on January 2017.

(b) Composition of First Used Trademark 1: Product classification Nos. 5, 30, type 30, type 30, type 1, type 3, type 1, type 3, type 1, type 3, type 1, type 3: Defendant joining the Defendant (C Company);

C. On March 2, 2017, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal of registration on March 2, 2017, on the ground that “The trademark of this case is similar to the pre-use trademark recognized as indicating a specific person’s goods in relation to “a building, bitk, etc.” at least to domestic or foreign consumers at the time of the application, and is applied for unjust purposes, such as obtaining unjust profits or inflicting losses on the particular person, and thus, constitutes Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply).”

(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On the grounds delineated below the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the pending trademark does not fall under Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act, and thus, the instant trial decision was unlawful.

1. The case.