1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumed factual basis

(a) The filing date of the instant registered service mark (Evidence 1 and 3)/ the filing date of the registration/Renewal/Renewal of the registration number: C/D/E 2 October 11, 2018) previous service business: The designated service business: (a) the game center service business, the recreation facility business, the recreation facility business, the electronic recreation room business, the children’s play room business, the play room operation business (the service provided with the complete equipment with the full equipment for play with the full equipment paid for the full equipment), the recreation room operation business (the service, the toy rental business, the school rental business, the library loan business, the sports facility business, the kindergarten management map business, the education information business, the education information business, the education information business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education business, the education of the rest with the full equipment paid time.

(b) Composition of a prior-use service mark (A) 1: 2) usage service business: A play room operation business using a block for assembly completed prefabricated, early childhood education service business using a block for assembly completed prefabricated, operation of recreation rooms, etc.;

C. On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) applied Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) to the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board for the following reasons: (b) “The registered service mark of this case is identical or similar to the prior-use service mark recognized as indicating the Plaintiff’s service business among domestic consumers; and (c) the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the intent to obstruct the Plaintiff’s domestic business after its registration; and (d) the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board applied Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8190, Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same). The above provision is wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016.