1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

가. 원고들의 이 사건 출원서비스표(갑2호증) 1) 출원일/ 출원번호 : C/ D 2) 구 성 : 3 지정서비스업 : 서비스업류 구분 제43류의 호프전문점업, 호프전문체인점업, 주점업, 스낵바업, 극장식주점업, 바서비스업, 간이식당업, 레스토랑업, 셀프서비스식당업, 일본음식점업, 한국식 유흥주점업, 뷔페식당업, 서양음식점업, 음식준비조달업

B. 1) On July 21, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner expressed the content or quality of the service provided by the Plaintiffs as follows: (a) the part of the pending service mark “” in the instant pending service mark constitutes the content of the designated service business; and (b) the part “” in the instant pending service mark also indicates the content or quality of the service provided by the Korean Intellectual Property Office, with the sense that “a even an even number and old age are to be provided in coal.”

Therefore, the pending service mark falls under a service mark with no distinctive character as a whole, and as a whole, it is impossible to distinguish general consumers as to whose business the mark is indicated, since it constitutes a service mark with no new concept or distinctive character. Thus, it cannot be registered as a service mark pursuant to Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

On November 23, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner submitted a written opinion against the notification of the submission of the above opinion. However, on January 18, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner rejected the registration of the instant pending service mark (Evidence A4) and filed a petition for a trial against the said decision with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 17, 2016.

3 The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board) is the case of the plaintiffs 2016 Won914.