1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s registered service mark 1) registration number / application date / registration decision date / registration date/ registration date: 3) designated service business: Marriage counseling business, marriage information business, marriage brokerage business, international marriage brokerage business, and international marriage brokerage business under Category 45 classified by service business: The transfer of rights to the instant registered service mark to G on March 31, 2017; G to H on July 3, 2017; and H to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2017, as the Plaintiff transferred in sequence the right to the instant registered service mark to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2017.

(b) The pre-use mark 1 of the Defendant side : the pre-use mark 1 of the pre-use mark 1 of the pre-use service (pre-use service mark 1 of the pre-use service mark 2 of the pre-use service mark 2 of the pre-use service mark 3 of the pre-use service mark 2 of the pre-use service :

C. On February 14, 2018, the Defendant: (a) the instant trial decision and the judgment before remanding; and (b) the instant registered service mark was completely amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; and (c) the Defendant is entitled to the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter

(2) The registered service mark of this case is identical or similar to the prior-use mark that is already known to domestic consumers or traders to the extent that it is recognizable as a specific person’s service mark at the time of the decision of registration, and the designated service business is identical or similar to the service business of prior-use mark, and thus, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the registered service mark of this case constitutes an abuse of right and thus, the registration of the service mark of this case ought to be invalidated. In addition, the Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against the Plaintiff as of October 19, 2018 against the Intellectual Property Tribunal. (2) The registered service mark of this case is identical or similar to the prior-use mark that is known to the extent that it would be recognized as a specific person’s service mark if it is used in the designated service business.