1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 17, 2019 on a case No. 2019Da30 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: 3) Designated service business: Advertising business and commercial information service business, publications advertising business, advertising and commercial promotional materials distribution business for the purpose of advertisement, marketing consultation business, product exhibition business, advertising promotion agent business, price comparison service business, commercial information provision service business, purchase order management and retail business, container tren, container rental and retail business, package package retail business, package package retail business, package-to-satt-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat

B. On January 4, 2019, the instant registered service mark B (hereinafter “B”) against the Plaintiff falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) since the instant registered service mark was indicated in a common way as raw materials and additional indications, and the figure portion is merely the background of the text and thus has no distinctiveness, it constitutes a case of Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same). Since the instant registered service mark was included in H’s well-known franchise trade name “I” with multiple member stores nationwide, it falls under Article 7(1)6 of the former Trademark Act, and even after being used or prepared for use by B, G filed an application for adjudication on the invalidation of the registration of the instant registered service mark by asserting that the registration should be invalidated.

(2) On December 17, 2019, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board(2019No. 29) held that the registered service mark of this case constitutes an indication of the nature that explains or describes in order to advertise and advertise the common name and characteristics of the registered service mark in the safe and retail business, and needs to be freely used by anyone in the relevant business sector.