1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Date/application number of the trademark in this case: C/D2 : 3) Designated goods: Manmark (Class), shoes, physical shoes, golf clothes, golf clothes, sports clothes, strings, kackers, children’s clothes, strings, strings, kids, male strings, male strings, air strings, air strings, strings, curgings, curgings, curgings, packs, strings, strings, strings, caps for clothes, clothing 4): Plaintiffs

(b) 1) The filing date of the prior registered trademark 1(A)/ the registration date / the registration number: The composition of March 29, 2011 / (c) the designated goods: [Attachment 1] the holder of right to registered (Attached 2) the date of application of the prior registered trademark / the registration date / the registration number / the registration number / the registration number : December 4, 2008 / the composition of November 11, 2009 / 80991(b)): the designated goods (attached 2) the holder of right to registered: The casecomer Co., Ltd.

C. 1) On June 10, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office cannot obtain registration under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act, since the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the prior registered trademark and its marks and designated goods against the Plaintiffs on June 10, 2014.

2) On September 1, 2014, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner notified the grounds for rejection to the effect that the trademark applied for registration of the instant case was not dismissed, despite the Plaintiffs’ submission of the written opinion on August 7, 2014, on the ground that the grounds that the grounds for rejection that the trademark applied for registration falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act was still rejected, and the Plaintiffs filed a petition for an appeal against the said decision with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 10, 2014.

3) After doing so, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board) shall examine the said request for a trial in the case of 2014 won6280, and on September 21, 2015, the trademark applied for trademark of this case falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act because the mark and the designated goods are identical or similar to the prior registered trademark. Therefore

The judgment of this case was rendered to dismiss the plaintiffs' above appeal on the grounds of the judgment of this case.