1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 24, 2015 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The date of priority claim/international registration/international registration number: (a) the date of priority claim/international registration/international trademark number: (b) the designated goods consisting of (i) April 10, 2013//100//1169057/2, April 10, 2012: as shown in attached Table 1; (b) the international trademark of earlier application of this case (hereinafter “instant earlier application trademark”) is as indicated in attached Table 1.

(1) 1) Designated goods consisting of the priority claim date/international registration date/domestic registration date/international registration number: (i) 21 March 201, 2012 / 14 June 14, 2012 / 1127109 2) : 3) : as shown in Appendix 2.

4. Trademark Right Holder: Saa Furs Oyj

C. 1) On November 10, 2012, the trademark of this case filed by the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office for the decision of refusal of the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (the international application registered internationally under Article 86-14(1) of the Trademark Act and designated the Republic of Korea as the designated country shall be deemed an application for trademark registration under the Trademark Act, and the international registration date under Article 3(4) of the aforementioned Protocol under Article 86-14(2) of the Trademark Act shall be deemed the filing date of the application for trademark registration under the Trademark Act, under Article 86-14(2) of the Trademark Act). On March 26, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office violates Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act because some of the designated goods among the designated goods were not specified or excessively wide, and (2) each of the registered trademark at the right country (the international registration date of this case was first registered as the trademark of this case.

As the name, concept, and concept of “Saa” part, which is an essential part in relation to the trademark, are similar, and some designated goods are identical or similar, it falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act. ③ Prior to the date of international priority argument, the mark is similar in relation to the trademark of earlier application of this case as the name, concept, and the concept of “Saaa” part, which is an essential part, and the grounds for rejection that part of the designated goods are identical or similar, cannot be registered under Article 8(1) of the Trademark Act.