1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 17, 2015 on the case No. 2015Da420 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration number 1)/ date of application/registration date: Designated goods consisting of (general trademark) trademark registration C/D/E2: (general trademark) designated goods: (b) the composition of pre-use trademark 1: “ ,” “ ,” “ ,” and “ 2-use goods,” etc.: crepiting, cremation, etc.

C. On February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the trademark registration with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2015Da420, Feb. 6, 2015) stating that “The registered trademark of this case is a trademark which imitates the pre-use trademarks recognized as indicating the Plaintiff’s goods among consumers, and thus its registration is null and void pursuant to Article 7(1)9 of the Trademark Act.” 2) On August 17, 2015, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2) filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the trademark on the ground that “the pre-use trademark cannot be deemed to have been remarkably perceived as the Plaintiff’s trademark among consumers or traders related to cosmetics at the time of filing the application for the trademark of this case, the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7(1)9 of the Trademark Act.”

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion ① at the time of the application for the trademark of this case, the pre-use trademarks were recognized as indicating the Plaintiff’s goods among domestic or foreign consumers. ② The registered trademark of this case and the pre-use trademarks of this case are identical or similar to external appearance, name, etc., and the designated goods are identical or similar to cosmetics such as non-cream,

(3) The defendant, the applicant of the registered trademark of this case, was supplied with and sold the products using the pre-use trademarks from the plaintiff or F corporation operated by the plaintiff, and used the pre-use trademarks for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits by causing confusion with the products of the plaintiff or F corporation.