1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 18, 2018 on a case No. 2017Da17555 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

가. 이 사건 등록서비스표 1) 등록번호/출원일/등록일: C/D/E 2) 구 성: 3) 지정서비스업: 서비스업류 구분 제43류의 키즈카페업, 간이식당업, 간이음식점업, 레스토랑 예약업, 레스토랑업, 샐러드바업, 서양음식점업, 식당체인업, 이동식레스토랑업, 패스트푸드식당업, 스낵바업, 식당 및 음식물 조달 서비스업, 음식조달서비스업, 음식조리대행업, 일반유흥주점업, 항공기기내식제공업, 음식준비조달업, 음식준비업, 실외 음식준비조달업, 도시락전문 식당체인업 4) 권리자: 피고

(b) Composition of the challenged mark 1: 2) User service business: The plaintiff; and

C. (1) On June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s challenged mark does not fall under the scope of the Defendant’s right to the registered service mark because it was not identical or similar to the Defendant’s registered service mark, and filed a request for a trial to confirm the scope of the right to the Defendant’s registered service mark. (2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter “instant trial decision”) deliberated on the instant case as 2017Da17555, and subsequently, on June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff’s challenged mark can be briefly named or conceptualized as “gbert” part, and the instant registered service mark can be separately observed and observed as “GLBERS” part. Accordingly, the challenged mark and the instant registered service mark are similar marks, and the designated service business of the instant registered service mark and the service business of the challenged mark are identical, and thus, the challenged mark falls under the scope of the right to the registered service mark.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 1 through 3, the whole argument

2. Determination as to whether the challenged mark falls under the scope of the right to the registered service mark of this case

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is as follows.