1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration number 1) / filing date of the instant registered trademark / Date of registration / Date of registration determination / Date of registration / Date of registration: Composition of No. 77722/ April 11, 2008/ February 1, 2008 / 2.2. 2. 2009): The trademark right holder is listed in the attached Form 3: the Defendant.

B. Composition of the First Used Trademark 1: 2) Products: The Plaintiff

C. On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for registration invalidation trial (No. 2013Da1974) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the ground that the registration of the instant registered trademark against the Defendant at the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff’s prior trademark, the mark, and the designated goods known as the trademark of a specific person would be identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s domestic consumers or traders at the time of the decision to register the trademark, and thus, the registration should be invalidated pursuant to Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act, etc. (No. 2). The Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for a trial on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff on October 22, 2014 alone cannot be deemed to be known to the extent that the instant registered trademark would be perceived as the trademark of a specific person between domestic consumers at the time of the decision to register the instant registered trademark, and without further review the remaining points, the instant registered trademark does not fall under Article 7(1)111

[Judgment of the court below] The plaintiff 1, Gap 1, 2, 3, and all of the arguments

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of revocation of the instant trial decision is that the registered trademark of this case constitutes grounds for invalidation of registration under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act, since the pre-use trademark, the mark, and the designated goods known as a trademark of a specific person are identical or similar to the prior-use trademark of this case, thereby causing misconception and confusion as to the source, and thus, it constitutes grounds for invalidation of registration under Article 7(1)11.

Therefore, the trial decision of this case, which has different conclusions, is unlawful.