1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The registration number 1)/ the filing date of the Plaintiff’s instant registered service mark 1) / the filing date of the service mark registration / the filing date of the service mark registration : the Internet integrated shopping mall business, door-to-door sales agency business, advertisement or sales promotion demonstration business, export and import service business, export and import agency business, book-to-door retail business, book-book retail business, day-to-day sales agency business, door-door retail business, paper-to-face retail business, paper-door box wholesale business, door-to-door wholesale business, door-door wholesale business, advertisement publishing business, product sales agency business, advertisement sales agency business, door-to-door wholesale business, product sales agency business, advertisement agency business, and publicity business under the category of service business: the designated service business subject to invalidation of text-to-door sales agency business, door-gu wholesale business, door-to-door wholesale business, product sales brokerage business, door-to-door wholesale business, paper wholesale business, paper wholesale business, paper wholesale business, paper wholesale business, and paper wholesale business;

B. Defendant’s pre-use trademarks 1: “(pre-use trademarks 1)” and “(pre-use trademarks 2)”: phrases and books

C. 1) On June 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff on June 11, 2018 as the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 20170, the designated service business of the instant registered service mark, the term sales agency business, door-to-door wholesale business, door-to-door sales agency business, goods sales agency business, phrases sales agency business, book-to-door retail business, day-book wholesale business, and paper-to-day wholesale business (hereinafter “designated service business subject to invalidation”) was wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; and (b) the same is applicable to the designated service business of the instant registered service mark.

(2) On November 22, 2019, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the instant registered service mark, asserting that the instant registered service mark falls under Article 7(1)11 and 12 of the former Trademark Act, and filed for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the instant registered service mark, on the ground that the instant registered service mark falls under Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act in relation to the pre-use trademarks.

[Judgment of the court below]