1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: B/C/D2: 3 designated goods: Direction of motor vehicle in Category C of Goods;

(b) Composition of a prior-use mark A: Multi-user such as a direction system for motor vehicles: Defendant;

C. 1) The Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant registered trademark falls under Article 7(1)11 and 12 of the Trademark Act in relation to the prior-use mark, and its registration should be invalidated.” 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the instant petition for a trial as 2013Da1742, and filed a petition for a trial on February 27, 2015, on the ground that “the instant registered trademark is similar to a trademark which imitates the prior-use mark recognized as indicating the Defendant’s goods by domestic consumers at the time of filing the application for a trial, and thus its registration should be invalidated by falling under Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act.”

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

(a) The mark prior to use did not reach the degree to be recognized as a mark of a specific person with respect to the direction-setting system for automobiles, which are goods used;

B. It is difficult to view that the registered trademark of this case is an essential part of “Roberta” and can only be placed in the transaction.

In addition, the pre-use mark is an essential part of the “RBERA” name, which is a string female name, and it is difficult to view that the pre-use mark can only be placed in the trade.

Therefore, the concept of appearance name is different in comparison with the prior use mark. Therefore, the trademark of this case differs from the concept of appearance name.

C. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had the purpose of gaining unjust profits in obtaining registration of the instant registered trademark from the filing of an application.

Therefore, the registered trademark of this case is therefore.