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 service mark (a evidence No. 1) 1)/ the filing date/registration number: C/D/E2): 3 designated service business: cremation research business, beauty study business, and research and study business concerning cosmetics, classified by service business;

(b) Pre-use trademark/service mark 1) Gu : Product service business: Cosmetics and cosmetics sales business;

C. On January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff’s trial decision of this case (Evidence A4 No. 1) against the Defendant, who is the person entitled to registration of the instant registered service mark, the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The registered service mark “ of this case” means not only Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) but also Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “ODM” of the Defendant and the Plaintiff is a abbreviation of “manufacturer’s development and production”, which is often translated as “manufacturer’s development and production,” and if the orderer entrusts the manufacture of the product to the manufacturing company, the manufacturing company shall develop and manufacture the product and deliver the product to the manufacturer, and the order distributor and sell the product.

In other words, unlike "OEM (OEM)" which simply produces and supplies goods according to the design drawings provided by the orderer, the manufacturer will produce and supply the goods in the lead at the request of the orderer.

In light of manufacturing process transaction, the registration should be invalidated as it falls under Article 7 (1) 12 of the former Trademark Act.

2) On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff’s pre-use trademark service mark “ ” is a prior-use trademark/service mark “,” and the aforementioned registered service mark is a prior-use trademark/service mark.