1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s pending service mark 1) international registration number / international registration date / priority claim date: B/ C/C/ 2 of January 21, 2015; the former designated service business: Legal specified in Category 45 of service business classification; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects to research and development projects to research and development projects; the latter’s contribution to research and development projects to research and development projects to research and development projects to research and development projects to research and development projects to research and development projects, patent attorneys 2.3.

C. 1) On March 29, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) regarding the Plaintiff’s application for the registration of international service marks for the instant pending service mark on the ground that “the instant pending service mark is similar to the prior registered service mark and its name and concept, and may cause misconception and confusion as to the source because it is similar to the designated service mark,” and the trademark law (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

(2) On September 20, 2018, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the same ground as the foregoing decision of refusal, the Plaintiff rejected the registration of the instant pending service mark pursuant to Article 7(1)7.

(2017won2036). [Reasons for recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion.