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

(a) 1) Date of application/registration number: B/C/D2: 3) Designated goods: Caton-on-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-pon-s.

(b) 1) The filing date of the prior registered trademark 1(A)/ the registration date / the extinguishment date/registration number: E/F/ G (C): The designated goods: The holder of the right to register the first registered trademark 2(A)/ the filing date of the registration / the expiration date/ the date of the first registered trademark / the expiration date/ the registration number / the registration number : H/ I/L / the 16th of the classification of the designated goods: the holder of the right to register the first registered goods of Category 16 for young children, the first time diaper for the first time, and the first time for the first time for the young children of Category 16: the holder of the right to register the second day for the first time for the first time for the first time for the registration of the goods: The defendant

C. (1) On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff’s instant trial decision falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act with the same or similar mark as “1,” “,” “2,” and the designated goods identical or similar to the prior registered trademark, and thus, the registration should be invalidated.

2) On July 17, 2015, the instant registered trademark is somewhat different from the prior registered trademark, and its appearance cannot be compared to the concept, but as a whole, the trademark is similar to the overall trademark on the same name.