1. The designated goods of the Intellectual Property Tribunal C among the designated goods of the trademark registration ruling rendered on June 10, 2019 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal.

1. Basic facts

A. The instant registered trademark (Evidence 1 and 4) 1/ Date of application / Date of registration: C/D/E 2) previous designated goods: Razers, razers treatment equipment, typide skin gambling equipment, medical machinery and appliances, medical appliances, medical sturgical instruments, high-frequency theater for medical use, medical rabsing equipment, medical sturging equipment, medical sturging equipment, medical sturging equipment, medical sturging equipment, medical surgery equipment, injection for injection, medical vibration, ion and raders’ combined functions, low-frequency electrical equipment, elementary wave treatment equipment, skin-type equipment, skin products, injecting equipment, electric appliances for skin treatment, cosmetic 4). The Plaintiff entitled to the right to the right to the right to the design of the instant registered trademark (the Plaintiff).

(b) A’s trademark registration number / filing date / registration date: F/ G/H2) previous designated goods (used goods): Hegel for cremation in the course of beauty management contained in the cosmetic period contained in Category 03 on the classification of goods: Defendant 4) right holder, who is used in the course of beauty management contained in Category 03:

C. The Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the registration of the instant registered trademark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff who is a trademark holder of the instant registered trademark, on the ground that “The instant registered trademark constitutes Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), which is identical or similar to the prior registered trademark widely known as the Defendant’s trademark prior to the filing date of the instant registered trademark, because it causes confusion with the Defendant’s goods or business or uses it for any wrongful purpose, and thus, the registration should be invalidated on the ground that it falls under Article 7(1)10 and 12 of the former Trademark Act.”