1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant’s registered trademark (hereinafter “instant registered trademark”) 1)/ Date of application/registration/registration number: On March 23, 2009 / January 29, 2010 / (No. 8128882): 3) Designated goods: Non-united Zone (No. 32) of Category 32 (U.S. spring water collected in the vicinity of the DM) for beverages manufactured using spring water as its raw material.

(b) 1) Date of application / Date of registration / Registration / Number : Composition of August 4, 2004 / August 4, 2006 / 673016 2): Designated goods: The holder of rights entitled to registration under category 32: the Plaintiff

C. On June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the instant registered trademark against the Defendant. On November 20, 2014, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s trial on the ground that “DM” and “DMZ” of the instant registered trademark are both the abbreviations of the DMZ, and thus, do not have or weak distinctiveness as it is inappropriate for a specific person to have exclusive rights for public interest. Considering the foregoing, the instant registered trademark does not differ from the prior registered trademark and its appearance, name, and concept, and thus does not fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main point of the grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the “DMF” of the pre-registered trademark is a general title leading to the DMZ, not a geographical name or geographical area, but a number of marks including “DMF” are registered, and thus, it is not a non-distinctive mark.

Since the term “DM land” of the instant registered trademark is identical to the Korean development of “DMZ” of the prior registered trademark, the instant registered trademark constitutes Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act, similar to the prior registered trademark in its essential part.

Therefore, the instant trial decision, which concluded otherwise, is unlawful.

3. Article 7 of the Trademark Act applies to the registered trademark of this case.