1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 22, 2015 on the case shall be revoked.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The registered trademark 1) filing date/registration decision date/registration date/registration number: C/D/E 2 March 12, 2014: 3) Designated goods classified as Category 25: the Defendant: the Defendant’s trademark right holder; (a) the clothing, shoes, sports clothes, uniforms, knices, liftss, external slots (except for sports-only dedicated clothes and Korean uniforms), raw feees, brus, v. Litts, Litts, Witts, women’s kacks, listks, girls, girls for women, skacks, skpons, caps, clothes, clothes, clothes, knicks, knives, and knive clothes 4):

(b) 1) The filing date and registration date / the registration number / the F/ G/H(B): the designated goods: (c) the date of application of Category 25 of the goods classification, the date of registration, the date of registration, and the number of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the registration / the number of the registered goods: (c) the designated goods: the owner of the trademark right (d) the goods classification of Category 25 of the goods: the Plaintiff;

(c) Composition of pre-use trademarks 1: 2) Goods used: Clothing, etc.

D. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff’s trial decision of this case 1) against the Defendant before the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The instant registered trademark is similar to the prior registered trademark and each of the designated goods falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act as well as Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act because it is similar to the prior registered trademark widely known as the trademark of a specific person among consumers, and thus falls under Article 7(1)9, 11, and 12 of the Trademark Act, and its registration should be invalidated.

2) On July 22, 2015, the instant registered trademark does not correspond to both Article 7(1)7, 9, 11, and 12 of the Trademark Act, and thus, the said registration cannot be invalidated on the ground that the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the grounds that the registered trademark and the pre-registered trademarks are not similar to the pre-registered trademark and the pre-registered trademarks.

【Ground of recognition】 There is no dispute.