1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including those incurred by participation.

1. Basic facts

(a) / Application Number 1 of the pending service mark / Application Number: C/D2: Designated service business: Civil engineering work business classified by category 37 of service business;

(b) Services using prior-use service mark 1: (A) prior-use service mark 1: (b) prior-use service mark 2: (c) prior-use service mark 3: (3) Construction Business 3: Defendant Intervenor;

C. On July 27, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered the instant application for the instant service mark on July 27, 2016, on the ground that not only the prior-use service mark 1 and 3, which is recognized as indicating a specific person’s service business, but also the prior-use service mark 1 and 3, and its marks and designated services are similar, and there are circumstances that may be mistaken for being used by the right holder of the prior-use service mark 1 and 3, or by a person in a special relationship with the right holder, there is a concern for consumers to be confused about the source of the service business. Accordingly, the instant pending service mark was rejected on the ground that Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) on October 4, 2016, the Patent Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s decision of refusal as above.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The trade name of the Defendant Intervenor, the user of the Defendant’s 1 prior-use service mark, was changed to “E Co., Ltd.” on April 2, 2007, and around June 5, 2009, to “F Co., Ltd.” on April 6, 2015, respectively, and changed to “B Co., Ltd.”. The Defendant Intervenor’s 2 is “B”.