1. The defendant shall display attached Form 2 or business marks on each website with respect to the business as listed in attached Form 1.

1. The Plaintiffs, as well as the medical specialists, are operating a mutual hospital of “E Hospital” from December 17, 201 to Daegu Suwon-gu D from December 17, 201.

The plaintiffs are entitled to registration of service mark F (designated Goods No. 44) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

(Date) G, date H., date I of the decision of registration, and date I of the service mark referred to as the “instant service mark.” The designated service business of the instant service mark is the physical therapy business, the external surgery business, the external surgery business, the hospital business (excluding dental service) and the hospital business (excluding dental service).

The defendant, as a medical specialist, has completed his/her business registration on June 3, 2013 and operates the hospital in the name of "K Extraordinary Department" in the J and fourth floor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and the defendant uses the trade name or service mark as shown in attached Form 3 from the hospital outer wall, window, elevator door, hospital roof, which he/she operates.

(B) Whether the service mark right was infringed on: (a) there is no dispute over the service mark of the Defendant [based on recognition]; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3; and (c) Eul evidence Nos. 5 and video No. 2.

(a) the fact that a similar service mark or a service mark is similar is not identical to each other, but rather means that the two service marks, compared to each other, are likely to cause confusion as to sources in light of trade norms if they are used for the same and similar services;

First of all, the service mark of the plaintiffs is combined with diagrams and “E Hospital”, and the service mark of the defendant is also combined with the word “K Masan”, and the overall appearance of the service mark is not identical except for “K Masan”.

However, a trademark consisting of letters and diagrams is generally referred to as a part of letters, unless it is the case where the figure part is unique and it is possible to derive any name or concept in itself, and it is generally referred to as the part of the letter, and Supreme Court Decision 12 July 12, 1996.