1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

가. 이 사건 출원상표 1) 출원일/ 출원번호 : B/ C 2) 구성 : 3) 지정상품 : 상품류 구분 제18류의 가방, 웨이스트백, 배낭, 숄더백(이하 ‘이 사건 각 지정상품’이라 한다

4) Applicant: The plaintiff

나. 선등록상표 1) 출원일/ 등록일/ 등록번호 : D/E/ F 2) 구성 : 3) 지정상품 : 상품류 구분 제25류의 머니벨트(의류), 의류용 멜빵, 의류용 벨트, 가죽신, 가죽제 슬리퍼, 고무신, 고무장화덧신, 골프화, 구두창, 깔창, 낚시용화(靴) 등 4) 상표권자 : G

C. On September 18, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to refuse the registration of the applied trademark of this case on the ground that “the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the trademark of this case, and thus cannot be registered as the trademark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act” in comparison with the pre-registered trademark. (2) The Plaintiff requested the Intellectual Property Tribunal to seek the revocation of the above decision of refusal.

After examining the above case of appeal as 2014 won6875, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision dismissing the plaintiff's above appeal on June 1, 2015 on the ground that "if the trademark of this case is to be traded by "the" part, the trademark of this case differs from the registered trademark of this case, or since the overall appearance of the registered trademark of this case is identical or similar to the name and concept of the essential part, the trademark of this case is similar to the registered trademark of this case. In addition, the trademark of this case is similar to the designated goods in comparison with the registered trademark of this case. Accordingly, the trademark of this case constitutes the trademark of this case as identical or similar to the registered trademark of this case and the designated goods fall under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, and the rejection decision of this case which rejected the registration of the applied trademark of this case

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3 through 5, Eul’s each entry and video, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The trademark of this case is the prior registered trademark.