1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

가. 이 사건 등록서비스표 1) 등록번호/ 출원일/ 등록일: C/ D/ E 2) 구성: 3) 지정서비스업: 서비스업류 구분 제43류의 간이식당업, 레스토랑업, 뷔페식당업, 서양음식점업, 셀프서비스식당업, 스낵바업, 식당체인업, 음식조리대행업, 음식준비조달업, 일본음식점업, 제과점업, 주점업, 중국음식점업, 카페업, 커피전문점업, 패스트푸드식당업, 한식점업, 항공기기내식제공업 4) 권리자: 피고

(b) Prior registered service mark 1) registration number / filing date / registration date / registration date / renewal date of prior registered service mark 1 A: F/ G/ H//B/registration date: (c) designated service: The holder of a right to a restaurant business referred to in Chapter 43 classified into service business: the Plaintiff, and I 2 (A) registration number / filing date / registration date / registration date / registration date / registration date / registration date / registration date : c): Designated service: cafeteria business classified into service business categories 43, and general restaurant business: the Plaintiff, I :

C. On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed for the invalidation of registration with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant, who is the holder of the registered service mark of the instant case. On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that “The instant registered service mark and the registered service mark are identical or similar to all of the registered service marks, and thus, the instant registered service mark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and filed for the invalidation of registration, claiming that the registration of the instant registered service mark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016).