1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 31, 2016 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Date of application/registration date/final renewal date/registration number of the instant registered service mark: C/D/E/ 2 May 25, 2016: 3): Designated service business: The “designated service business of the instant registered service mark, which is the designated service business of the instant registered service mark, is classified as Category 112 as at the time of registration of the service mark, but the classification of goods was converted into Category 43 as at July 6, 2006 upon application for registration of the conversion of the classification of goods according to the International Product Classification. 4) A registered service mark owner: Defendant

(b) A mark subject to verification 1) Gu : A service business using the Gu : The plaintiff;

C. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff indicated the Defendant, the holder of the right to register the instant registered service mark in a common way, and the mark subject to confirmation, in a common way, is indicated in the Plaintiff’s trade name. Among them, the term “private source” portion constitutes a conspicuous geographical name, and thus, it was wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

(2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the instant registered service mark on the ground that the mark subject to confirmation does not fall under Article 51(1)1 and 3 of the former Trademark Act and does not fall under Article 51(1)1 and 3 of the same Act, and thus, does not fall under the scope of rights of the instant registered service mark.

(hereinafter “instant trial decision”). 3 The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant trial decision on November 29, 2016.

Before remand.