1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The Defendant’s registered service mark (1) of this case/ the filing date/registration number: C/D/E (2): the designated service business (3) the category of the service business is divided into Category 35, the retail business of bail (retailwel, jweld in) and the retail business of sight;

(b) International registration date or subsequent designation date/international registration number: F/13, G/H (2): - Designated Goods of Chapter 14; Poscis and Docs; Docs; eveals; Pos; Docles; Docles; Docles; Docles; Docles; Docles; Docles; Docles; Docles; Docles;

C. (1) On August 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed for a registration invalidation trial on the instant registered service mark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant, who is the holder of the instant registered service mark “,” and filed for a registration invalidation trial on the instant registered service mark by asserting that “The instant registered service mark violates the earlier application principle under Article 8(1) of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) on the grounds that the registered service mark is similar to the earlier application trademark “,” and its marks and designated services.

(2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board on February 20, 2017.