1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 2, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

(a) The filing date of the application number of the Plaintiff’s pending service mark (A No. 1) / the filing date of the application: Type 41-2015-53476//911, 2015: Type 3 designated service business: marketing consultation in the medical field of category 35, business management consultation, medical information service, medical service business management/management, medical field/management, advertisement and public relations, medical field marketing, marketing in the medical field, spatial information industry on the website for medical advertisement purpose, Internet advertising agency business, Internet advertising business in the medical field, Internet advertising business in the medical field, entertainment business in the medical field through the Internet, and tele-market marketing business in the medical field of medicine;

(b) Date of application 1) of another person’s prior-registered service mark 1) date/registration date/service mark registration number : A/B/C 2) previous service business: Advertising agency business, advertising material business, advertising distribution through the Internet, online advertising service on a computer network, employment information provision business, news crying business, auction service business, online auction service business, bail wholesale, business of selling clothes/stacks, convenience stores, signboard advertising, public relations business, product display business, television advertising business under category 35: D:

C. On July 4, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office: (a) on the instant pending service mark, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the same ground as “the foregoing registered trademark, mark, and designated service business is similar, and thus constitutes Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).” (b) the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial against the foregoing decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal (Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal 2016 Won4530, Nov. 21, 2017).

(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant trial decision is lawful