1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 14, 2019 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on a case No. 1520 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) The Plaintiff’s registered service mark (1) date of application/registration date//registration number: C/D/E (2): Designated service business: (3) Sale brokerage business within a category 35 classified by service business, retail business of contact lenses cleaning, retail business of within a category 35, retail business of within a category 35, retail business of within a category 1, retail business of within a category 35, and wholesale business;

(b) Composition of marks subject to verification (1): (2) Using service business: Ansan and retail business; and

C. (1) On May 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion against the Defendant to confirm the scope of rights of the instant registered service mark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal seeking confirmation that the challenged mark falls under the scope of rights of the instant registered service mark.

(2) On October 14, 2019, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that the mark subject to confirmation is identical to the registered service mark of this case, but the Defendant’s trade name is limited in accordance with commercial practices, and thus, the validity of the registered service mark of this case was limited.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The decision of this case on the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion determined that the Defendant’s mark subject to confirmation was deemed to have used his trade name in accordance with the practice of commercial transaction, and thus did not affect the registered service mark.

The trial decision of this case shall be revoked for the following reasons.

(1) Since the Defendant’s trade name is “F (G)”, the Defendant used the challenged mark, not its own trade name, but its trade name.

(2) The Defendant concluded a franchise agreement with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and used the challenged mark as a business mark to indicate that the franchisee is distinguished from another, and thus, it does not use the trade name in accordance with the commercial practice.

In addition, the defendant.