1. Service mark C registration number of a trial decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 16, 2015 regarding cases No. 2014Da2798.

1. Basic facts

(a) Date of application/registration number 1) of the instant registered service mark 1) / the date of application/registration number: 3) holder of the right: The Plaintiff, F, G, and H4 (Registration of D// service mark : The designated service business: livestock care assistance business, nursing, health care business, hair crypology service, hair crypology service business, physical therapy service business, hospital business, sex surgery, veterinary surgery, veterinary clinic service business, pharmacy addiction and rehabilitation service business, pharmacy preparation and mediation business, pharmaceutical consultation service, nursing clinic business, health equipment leasing business, medical care service business, pharmaceutical selection service business, technical service business, pharmaceutical information service business, clinic, clinical medical clinic, midwifery, dentistry, dental assistant business, dental clinic business, dental clinic business, dental clinic business, oriental medicine clinic business, blood, sex therapy business, diagnostic therapy business, and specialized opinion agenda in the field of medicine, and industrial field of medicine;

B. On November 6, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the registered service mark of this case against the right holder of the registered service mark of this case, including the Plaintiff, falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act because the registered service mark of this case has its character or no distinctive character with respect to the sex extra medicine among its designated service business, and that the designated service mark of this case is likely to mislead the quality of the service business in relation to the designated service business other than sex extra medicine among its designated service business, it falls under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act. (2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal asserted that the registered service mark of this case falls under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act, and filed for a registration invalidation trial (No. 2014Da2798) on June 16, 2015. As to the designated service mark of this case, the registered service mark of this case falls under the category of service mark consisting solely of marks indicating the nature of the designated service business in a common way, it is likely that it might mislead the designated service business in the medical service business of this case.