1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 24, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on a case No. 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The registered trademark 1) filing date/registration date/registration number: 16/16/200 on Jan. 14, 2003 / 539270 / 2): Designated goods: Class 30 on the classification of goods

(b) Composition of a challenged mark 1: 2) Goods using red ginseng, red ginseng, red ginseng, red ginseng ginseng, red ginseng xx, red ginseng ginseng, red ginseng cans, red ginseng cans, red ginseng for beverage, red ginseng, red ginseng for beverage, and 3 users of red ginseng for beverage: Defendant;

C. (1) On July 13, 2017, the Defendant filed a request for a trial to confirm the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Defendant’s mark subject to confirmation is not similar to the instant registered trademark, and thus, the Defendant did not fall under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark that designated the instant trademark as the designated goods of the trademark. (2) On October 24, 2017, the Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the instant request for a trial to confirm the scope of the right. (3) On the grounds that the Defendant’s mark subject to confirmation is not similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark, and thus does not fall under the scope of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark right without examining whether the goods and designated goods are identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark. (hereinafter “instant trial decision”).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the propriety of the instant trial decision

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1 and the challenged mark of the Plaintiff 1 are both the Plaintiff’s registered trademark and the challenged mark are mainly composed of ginseng roots shapes. In common, the appearance and concept of “the shape of two persons who are considered to be a horse and seated” is similar when compared with the overall ethic observation.

Nevertheless, the instant trial decision pertains to the challenged mark.