1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration number 1) / filing date / registration date : B/ C/D2 : 3) Designated service business: four-day art business, literacy consultation business, beauty art unemployment, beauty art business, beauty art information business, divisionral agency’s service business, beauty art business, beauty art business, barber’s and hairdresser’s beauty business, beauty service business, artificial standard, sunbing service business, cremation consultation business, cremation (public medical ethics, etc.) service business (hereinafter “cosmetic, etc.”).

4) Service mark holders: the Plaintiff

(b) Registration number 1) / filing date / registration date: No. 45-010424// May 12, 2003: Designated service 3: Marina business, door-to-door business, beauty service business, barber’s practice, hand-to-door beauty service business, head-kaking service business, etc. classified by service business category 44;

C. 1) The Defendant is similar to the registered service mark of this case, and thus, the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same applies).

(2) On March 31, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling accepting the Defendant’s request on the ground that “The instant registered service mark is similar to the prior registered service mark, and the instant registered service mark is identical or similar to the prior registered service mark’s designated service business in relation to beauty and art business, etc. during the designated service business. Therefore, the registration should be invalidated by falling under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act, as it falls under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act.”

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. In view of the purport of the grounds for revocation of the decision by the Plaintiff’s assertion that a number of trademarks or service marks including “oar” or “lear” are registered with respect to the same or similar type of business or goods as the designated service business of the instant registered service mark, the instant registered service mark is registered.