1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (1) The date of application of the registered trademark of this case / the registration date / the trademark registration number: the composition of July 14, 2008 / 753522 (2) of the registered trademark of this case : The designated goods listed in [Attachment].

(4) Trademark right holder: Defendant;

(b) (1) Date of prior registered trademark (1)/registration date/trademark registration number: (2) / July 19, 2005 / 2005 / 625403 (2): (3) Designated goods: A trademark right holder of (2) / 2005 / 19 July 19, 2005 : Beummmas, etc. for cremation of the category of goods classified by category 03: the Plaintiff;

C. (1) On July 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant, stating that “The instant registered trademark is similar to the prior registered trademark, and its designated goods fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act, which is identical or similar to the cremation mass, among the designated goods of the prior registered trademark.”

(2) After examining the aforementioned request for a trial as the Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1861, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on July 15, 2014 on the ground that “the instant registered trademark is not similar to the prior registered trademark, and thus does not fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's grounds for revoking the decision and a summary of the party's principal

A. In contrast to the Plaintiff’s grounds for revocation of the decision and the purport of the assertion, when comparing the “defication”, which is the essential part of the instant registered trademark, and “Pium” which is the essential part of the prior registered trademark, both are similar to the appearance, but the name and concept are similar as a whole, and the designated goods are identical or similar to the designated goods. Thus, Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Therefore, the trial decision of this case, which held that the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. The mark of the registered trademark of this case, which is a summary of the defendant's assertion, shall be the mark and its appearance.