1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumed factual basis

(a) Date of application/registration/registration number of the instant registered service mark (A. 1 and 3 evidence 1) / : C/D/E 2) previous service business: (a) designated service business: Game center service industry, entertainment facility provision business, recreation facility provision business, electronic amusement room business, children’s play room management business, play room operation business, play room operation business (a service provided for play with an perfect part of time paid with the complete part of time), toy lending business, toy lending business, school lending business, book lending business, sports facility business, kindergarten management business, educational guidance business, sports facility operation business, recreation facility operation business (a service provided for play with the complete part of time paid with the complete part of time), rest room operation business (a service provided for play with the complete part of time paid with the complete part of time), toy lending business, school lending business, book lending business, sports facility operation business, sports facility operation business, recreation facility operation business (a service provided for the payment of expenses for the use of the part of the rest);

(b) Composition of a prior-use service mark (A) (A) : 2) Service business: A play room operation business using a block for assembly completed prefabricateds, early childhood education service business using a block for assembly completed prefabricateds, operation of recreation rooms, etc.;

C. On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) applied Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) to the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board for the following reasons: (b) “The registered service mark of this case is identical or similar to the prior-use service mark recognized as indicating the Plaintiff’s service business among domestic consumers; and (c) the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the intent to obstruct the Plaintiff’s domestic business after its registration; and (d) the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board applied Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8190, Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same). The above provision is wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016.