1. The defendant shall not use each mark listed in the separate sheet No. 1 for each service listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed for registration of the service mark (hereinafter “instant service mark”) as indicated below.

On November 18, 2008, the filing date of the trademark registration No. 41 of the designated service business No. 017315 of the registration number No. 017 on December 20, 2007 (personal teaching faculty, educational testing, private teaching institute management, Korean language private teaching institute management, academic teaching institute management, language teaching institute management, English language institute management, English language institute management, foreign language institute management, Internet education course, etc.) No. 41 of the designated service business No. 017316 of the registration number No. 017 on November 20, 2007 (personal teaching institute business, educational test business, Korean language institute management, academic teaching institute management, language education institute business, English management, English language school management, foreign language education institute business, Internet education course, etc.) on December 18, 2007

B. The Plaintiff, using the instant service mark, advertises “self-driving diagrams learning management system” and operates a private teaching institute business, and has approximately eight direct management stores and 120 franchise stores.

C. The Defendant operated a private teaching institute under the trade name of “B” and removed the said service mark around April 30, 2017 when the Plaintiff resisted to use the service mark “B” from September 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion infringed the Plaintiff’s right by using each service mark similar to the instant service mark (hereinafter “Defendant’s service mark”) as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, which is similar to the instant service mark. As such, the Defendant is obligated to prohibit, destroy, and compensate the Plaintiff for damages as stated in the claim

B. Whether this case’s service mark and Defendant’s service mark are similar to each other’s service mark, the similarity of the relevant legal doctrine is objective, overall, in terms of appearance, name, and concept.