1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (1) Registration number / filing date / registration date / (2) of the registered trademark of this case: (3) The designated goods: the goods classified as Type C/D/E (2): The owner of the right to the trademark of this case, with the ingredients of the frozen fruits, water, meat, freezing two kinds of meat, food processing flowers, processed ginseng, processed ginseng, processed ginseng, red ginseng, processed red ginseng, processed red ginseng, processed red ginseng, ginseng processed food, ginseng processed food, and red ginseng as the lead fee for health functional food, health assistance food, the two parts, processed food, processed milk, processed food, processed food, processed food, processed food, processed food, processed food maintenance, frying, infishing, live fish or shellfish (including those stored in freezing or salted), and the processed egg processed food (4): the owner of the right to the trademark of this case;

(b) Registration number (1)/filing date/registration date: 1) Composition of trademark registration F/G/H (2) : (3) Designated goods: The holder of right, such as ginseng powder for beverage consumption, red ginseng powder for beverage consumption, ginseng X-ray for beverage consumption, red ginseng ginseng, red ginseng, ginseng liquor, ginseng liquor, non- alcohol red ginseng ginseng, carbon content containing red ginseng content, etc. (4) : The plaintiff;

C. (1) On October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of trademark registration against the Defendant on the ground that the instant registered trademark is identical or similar to the prior registered trademark, the mark, and the designated goods, and thus, there exists a ground for invalidation of trademark registration under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same).

(2) On October 10, 2019, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request (hereinafter “instant trial ruling”) on October 10, 2019, deeming that the instant registered trademark does not constitute grounds for invalidation under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act because it was not identical or similar to the prior registered trademark.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is similar to the mark when the registered trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark were prepared as a whole, including “distinctively distinctive” as a whole.