1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The filing date and the registration date/registration number of the instant registered service mark (A No. 1) 1: the unit of the instant registered service mark on January 15, 2010/10 (No. 219876/ Oct. 26, 2011): 3) the designated service business: the door-to-door service business, the small cargo delivery business, the air transport business, the international complex transport business, the international complex transport business, the document-to-face transport business, the warehouse transport business, the vessel transport brokerage business, the air transport business, the transportation brokerage business, the transportation brokerage business, the transportation agency business, the transportation agency business, the director agency service 4): the Plaintiff

(b) Composition of the challenged mark 1: 2) Use service business: Air transportation business, maritime transportation business, and 3 users of director agency service business: the Defendants

C. On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for an affirmative trial to confirm the scope of rights by asserting that “the mark subject to confirmation is identical or similar to the registered service mark of this case and its designated service business (service business) belongs to the scope of the right of the registered service mark of this case.” 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal reviewed the said petition for a trial as the case of 2014Da707. On January 5, 2015, the Patent Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for a trial to confirm the scope of rights by asserting that “the mark subject to confirmation is similar to the registered service mark of this case, because the mark subject to confirmation is different from its appearance, name, and concept,” and thus, it is similar to one another on January 5, 2015.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The registered service mark of this case and the marks subject to confirmation are similar to their appearance, all of which consist of a four-dimensional blue door shape.

In addition, the registered service mark of this case is referred to as the “slush large bags for modern shipping” or “slush large bags for four blue,” respectively, and the challenged mark is referred to as the “crush large bags for accelerators” or “4 blue large bags for four blue,” respectively.