1. The Patent Tribunal's registration number F of the service mark registration number of a trial decision rendered on June 16, 2015 with respect to the case No. 2014Da2798.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Date/registration date/registration number: 3) Composition of the filing date/registration number of the instant registered service mark 1: The Defendants 4: Livestock treatment assistance business, nursing business, health care business, health care business, head scopathying service business, physical therapy service business, pathology service business, hospital business, sex surgery business, veterinary clinic business, examination and correction service business, pharmacy addict rehabilitation service business, drug medication consultation business, nursing clinic business, health and health equipment leasing business, medical care business, medicine examination business, pharmaceutical selection service business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, doctor’s license business, blood banking business, and professional opinion service business in the field of medicine.

B. On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the registered service mark of this case falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act, because it is likely that the registered service mark of this case might mislead the quality of the service business in relation to the designated service, other than sexual surgery, on the ground that it is likely that the designated service mark of this case might mislead the quality of the service business in relation to the designated service. (2) On June 16, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal asserted that the registered service mark of this case constitutes a trademark under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act composed solely of marks indicating the characteristics of the designated service business in a common way with respect to the designated service mark of this case, and that the designated service mark of this case falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act, and that the designated service mark of this case falls under the category of the designated service business of this case, medical clinic business, clinical medicine business of this case, and professional quality of the service business of this case.