The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) Table 1) Registration number/application date/registration decision date/registration date: D/E//F/F2 on July 26, 2016 of the Service Schedule: Designated service 3: Designated Service Table: The service business classified into Category 43: the simple restaurant business, tourist restaurant business, recreation restaurant business, rental restaurant business, waste-to-land restaurant business, restaurant restaurant, restaurant preparation business, food introduction business, food delivery service business, food cooking agency business, food cooking agency business, food preparation business, food preparation service restaurant business, accelerator service restaurant business, simple restaurant business, swine machine specialized restaurant business, and restaurant business 4) service: Plaintiff

B. Preliminary Use Services Schedule 1: (hereinafter “ Prior Use Services Schedule 1”) (hereinafter “Pre-Use Services Schedule 2”) (hereinafter “Pre-Use Services Schedule 2”): The point service 3): From April 2002 to April 3: User: The Defendants, as G and its children, have taken over each business of the restaurants used as marks.

C. 1) The Defendants filed with the Intellectual Property Tribunal a claim against the Plaintiff for adjudication on invalidation of registration of the service schedule (2751 per 2019) by asserting that the registration of the instant registered service schedule falls under Article 7(1)11 or 12 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) in relation to the relationship between the service schedule of prior use and the division.

2) On September 1, 2020, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling that the registration of the instant registered service list constitutes Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act in relation to the prior used service list, accepting the said appeal by the Defendants on the ground that it constitutes Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that a specific person at the time of the registration or application of the instant registration service list.