1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The plaintiff's registered trademark (1) date/registration date/registration date: B/C/registration date: (2) Designated goods: chest prote articles in Category 10 of the Product Classification; relics used for the expansion of breasts; man-made fibres; artificial proteins; artificial proteins; artificial proteins; artificial proteins; artificial typins; artificial typins; artificial typins; human colon's bones; human colon's bones; artificial colon's body body / internal wall/ blood transfusions; appointed appliances for domestic use; electric masts; surgicals; surgerys; medical mack; and human proteins;

(b) The Defendant’s pre-use trademark (1) mark: SILD (2): Goods of chest

C. (1) On September 13, 2013, the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff that “The registered trademark of this case falls under Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “Trademark”), and filed a petition for registration invalidation trial (2515, Feb. 25, 2013) on the instant registered trademark.”

(2) On March 11, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling accepting the above request for a trial on the ground that “The registered trademark of this case is identical or similar to the pre-use trademark which is recognized as indicating the goods of a specific person among consumers abroad at the time of the application, and is registered for unjust purposes, such as the Plaintiff’s attempt to gain unjust profits or prevent the Plaintiff from importing and selling the goods of the pre-use trademark domestically. Accordingly, the registered trademark of this case constitutes Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act and thus, its registration must be invalidated pursuant to Article 71(1)1 of the same Act.”

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

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. Unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant trial decision that held that the instant registered trademark falls under Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s argument.