1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) The filing date and the application number of the trademark in this case: Composition of November 13, 2012 / No. 40-2012-70485 2): Three designated goods: A list in attached Form 3:

1.(b)

Priorly registered/service mark 1) Date/registration date/registration number: Composition of September 26, 2001 / March 5, 2003 / Designation of a trademark and service mark No. 7090 (2) : Schedule of Attached 3 designated/service:

2. Four obligees: Execution media for stock companies; and

C. On November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of the instant applied trademark. On May 30, 2013, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner notified the Plaintiff of the submission of the opinion that “the instant applied trademark is similar to another person’s registered trademark, service mark, and designated goods, and thus cannot be registered pursuant to Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.” On November 7, 2011, the Plaintiff made a decision to refuse the registration of the instant applied trademark. (2) The Plaintiff requested the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal for the revocation of the said decision of refusal and the rejection of the decision of refusal seeking the registration of the instant applied trademark, but the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the said decision on October 23, 2014 on the ground that “the instant applied trademark is similar to the prior registered trademark and service mark, and is similar to the designated goods.”

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Although the trademark of this case is similar to the prior registered trademark, service mark, and title, the appearance and concept cannot be deemed as a similar mark as a whole, as the trademark of this case is clearly distinguishable from the appearance and concept.

Nevertheless, the trial decision of this case which held that the applied trademark of this case is similar to the prior registered trademark and service mark, and thus constitutes Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act is unlawful.

B. The trademark of this case, the trademark of this case, the prior registered trademark, and the service mark are somewhat somewhat different from their appearance and concept.