1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The filing date of the instant registered service mark (Evidence 16) 1/ the registration date / the renewal date / registration number: C/D/ the registration date: 3/2 of November 3, 2009): Designated service: ① Books publishing business, religious education business, kindergarten management, communications course business, sound records recording business, choir operation business, choir preparation and proceeding business, ② document editing business, book printing business, editing business, printing business, printing business, and religious gathering group title 42 of the category of service business: the Defendant;

B. On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff’s instant trial decision (Evidence 2 No. 1) against the Defendant who is the holder of the registered service mark of this case under the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2017Da2305, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “(i) the registered service mark of this case is merely a mark indicating the nature of the designated service in a common way, and thus falls under Article 6(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply). ② Article 6(1)7 of the former Trademark Act is deemed to fall under Article 7(1)4 of the former Trademark Act because it is impossible for consumers to distinguish whose business the mark is related to a person’s business, and thus, it does not fall under Article 7(1)4 of the former Trademark Act or Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act, which is contrary to the good customs or public order.”