All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, including the part resulting from succession.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. 1) The filing date of an application / the filing date of registration / the renewal registration date / the registration number: F/G/H 2/H2) designated goods: F/3) the holder of a right prior to the medical use of Class 10 classified by the product: Defendant B, C, and the succeeding intervenor E (the succeeding intervenor of Defendant D (the deemed withdrawal of the lawsuit) is deemed to have been registered by acquiring the trademark right shares of the instant trademark from Defendant D (the party to whom the lawsuit is deemed to have been withdrawn) on September 17, 2020, by acquiring the trademark right shares of the instant trademark registration from the joint owner of the trademark of the instant case from Defendant D (the party to whom the lawsuit is deemed to have been withdrawn) on September 17, 2020)

B. (1) On September 21, 2018, the Plaintiff constitutes Article 6(1)2 and Article 71(1)5 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) and Article 71(1)4 of the former Trademark Act against the Defendants and the Defendant ( Deemed withdrawal of the lawsuit) on September 21, 2018, as the trademark of this case is used by the Intellectual Property Tribunal for the purpose of medical and non-medical services. The registration of the trademark of this case constitutes Article 7(1)4 of the former Trademark Act as it falls under Article 7(1)1 of the former Trademark Act and Article 7(1)10, 121 and 12 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) and is registered for the purpose of sound commercial order and unfair competition.

“The registered trademark of this case filed a petition for adjudication on invalidation of registration.”

2) Accordingly, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the aforementioned request for a trial by 3130 cases per 2019, and on March 23, 2020, the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Articles 6(1)2 and 71(1)5 of the former Trademark Act, and it cannot be deemed as a trademark contrary to public order and good customs, and thus does not fall under Article 7(1)4 of the former Trademark Act. Since prior use cannot be deemed as a trademark recognized as a well-known trademark or a specific person’s trademark, it does not fall under Article 7(1)10, 11, and 12 of the former Trademark Act.