1. The service mark C registered in the trial decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 3, 2020 on the case No. 2018Da3026.

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration number 1)/ filing date/registration date of the instant registered service mark 1) / Service mark registration : Service business 3) designated service business: Medical service business, skin business, health examination business, hospital business (excluding dental service), hospital medical care business (excluding dental service), beauty and cosmetic-type, cosmetic-type, cosmetic-type, cosmetic-type, beauty treatment business, cosmetic-type, cosmetic-type, medical advisory service in the area of imposition, medical consulting service providing service in the area of imposition, imposition of skin-type, internal medicine, outpatient-type, outpatient-type, beauty treatment business, and non- thousand square clinic business 4): Defendant;

B. The prior registered trademark of this case which is not subject to specific comparison among the pre-use trademarks is omitted.

1) The former pre-use trademark 1A) use period: Da cosmetic c) use period: Plaintiff 2) prior-use trademark 2005; Defendant 2) use period: Da c) use period: Plaintiff 205

C. On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) against the Defendant, the holder of the instant registered service mark; and (b) on the instant registered service mark, the instant registered service mark was amended by the Intellectual Property Tribunal pursuant to Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016, with the Plaintiff’s trademark registration F, G, and the mark and designated goods are identical or similar service marks identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark registration F, G, and designated goods.

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act is applicable under Article 7(1)7. The registered service mark of this case is identical or similar to the pre-use trademarks recognized remarkably by consumers at the time of filing an application for the registration of the registered service mark, and it has been filed for an unjust purpose and its registration is similar to the pre-use trademarks and the designated goods known as the Plaintiff’s trademark at the time of determining the registration, which cause misconception or confusion of sources between the goods and the service business, and thus, it is feared that consumers may be only aware of such fact. Thus,

“The instant case asserted.”