1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The date of application of the Plaintiff’s registered service mark (Evidence 1) of this case 1 / the registration date / registration number : C/D/ E-2) old service business: Tourist accommodation brokerage business, tourist accommodation business, tourist accommodation accommodation business, cooking and lodging business, cooking and lodging business, terminal business, accommodation guidance business, hotel accommodation business, youth hostel business, temporary accommodation and accommodation arrangement business, temporary accommodation accommodation and accommodation accommodation accommodation facility placement business, camping and reservation business, camp accommodation accommodation accommodation accommodation business, hotel accommodation business, hotel accommodation business, hotel accommodation business, hotel accommodation facility operation business, holiday accommodation service business, temporary accommodation facility placement business, temporary accommodation facility placement business, camp accommodation accommodation facility reservation business, camp accommodation facility reservation business, camp accommodation business, camp accommodation business, accommodation accommodation business, hotel accommodation business;

(b) Prepaid service mark (No. 5 No. 1-17) 1) : F2 : penting service:

C. On April 7, 2015, the Defendant asserted that the registered service mark of this case was registered in violation of Article 7(1)11 and 12 of the Trademark Act, and that the registration of this case should be invalidated. (2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the instant trial decision on December 4, 2015 on the ground that the registered service mark of this case is identical or similar to the prior-use service mark and the mark and service business recognized as indicating a specific person’s service business among domestic consumers at the time of filing the application for the registration, and thus, it constitutes a registered service mark registered for unlawful purpose, such as seeking unfair profits, and should be invalidated without considering the remaining points.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. At the time of the application of the registered service mark of this case, the prior-use service mark indicates a specific person’s service business among domestic consumers.