1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The filing date and the application number of the pending trademark (1): August 6, 2015; (2) the mark No. 40-2015-5874 (2)

B. (1) On January 4, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the grounds for rejection that “the trademark of this case constitutes not only Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) but also Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) on the same or similar basis as the trademark of another person’s prior registered trademark under Article 80933, prior registered international trademark, and its marks and designated goods are identical or similar to those of another person’s registered trademark.”

(2) On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion and amendment on the foregoing grounds for rejection. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on May 16, 2016 on the ground that “Although re-examination by the Plaintiff’s written opinion and amendment, the part of Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act among the grounds for rejection was not resolved.”

(3) On August 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the foregoing decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. On September 7, 2017, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board notified the new grounds for rejection that “The trademark applied for trademark “ cannot be registered pursuant to Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act,” which is recognized as meaning “district-friendly products,” etc. and thus, indicates the nature of the designated goods (raw materials, quality, efficacy, etc.) as well as its entire distinctive character as a mark.”

(4) After that, on January 4, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal cannot distinguish not only the applied trademark falls under “technical marks” under Article 6(1)3 of the former Trademark Act, but also whether the applied trademark indicates goods related to the business of nives under Article 6(1)7 of the same Act.