1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 9, 2015, the Defendant asserted that “The Plaintiff’s registered service mark (registration number C) of this case constitutes Article 8(1) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) in relation to the Defendant’s earlier application service mark (registration number D; hereinafter “Earlier service mark”) with respect to the whole designated service business, and filed a petition against the Plaintiff for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the instant registered service mark under the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2015Da3862, the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff. 2) on August 1, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed the instant petition for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the instant registered service mark on the grounds that the mark is similar in relation to the earlier application service mark and the designated service business constitutes Article 8(1) of the former Trademark Act because it is identical and similar to the designated service business.

나. 원고의 이 사건 등록서비스표 1) 등록번호/ 출원일/ 등록일: 서비스표등록 C/ E/ F 2) 구성 : 3 지정서비스업 서비스업 구분 제43류의 레스토랑업, 극장식주점업, 바서비스업, 뷔페식당업, 서양음식점업, 셀프서비스식당업, 스낵바업, 식당체인업, 음식조리대행업, 음식준비조달업, 제과점업, 주점업, 중국음식점업, 카페업, 카페테리아업, 커피전문점업, 패스트푸드식당업, 한식점업, 다방업, 일반음식점업

다. 피고의 선출원서비스표 1) 등록번호/ 출원일/ 등록일: 서비스표등록 D/ G/ H 2) 구성 : 3 지정서비스업 서비스업류 구분 제43류의 극장식주점업, 다방업, 레스토랑업, 바서비스업, 뷔페식당업, 서양음식점업, 셀프서비스식당업, 스낵바업, 식당체인업, 음식조리대행업, 음식준비조달업, 일본음식점업, 제과점업, 주점업, 중국음식점업, 카페업, 카페테리아업, 칵테일라운지서비스업, 커피전문점업, 패스트푸드식당업, 한국식...