1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be the part resulting from the participation.

1. Basic facts

(a) Number 1 of the plaintiffs' trademark 1 of this case / filing date: 3 designated goods: Meck business cosmetics, chropse coloring agents, fyd and beautybing cosmetics in Category 3 of the classification of goods, snckbing cosmetics, sncking cosmetics, emuls and frying cosmetics, coloring cosmetics, coloring and fyds, frocons, hackers, gel for cremation, gel for cremation, cosmetics, cosmetics, fyds and natives, cosmetics, fyds and fyds, fys, rain for cremation, rainy, shamp, shoo, shoo, human body brinpp, handblp, bucks, bucks, bucks for cremation, gys for cremation;

(b) 1) Registration number/registration date/registration date of the Defendant’s assistant intervenor’s registered trademark 1) / (1) previous designated goods of category 3: cosmetics, luminous materials, luminous materials, washing materials, laundry materials, screen goods, social errors, tax administration/luminous materials, natural flassium, strings, taxes, human body flags, oral strings, luminous strings, luminouss, luminous shampoos, pet shampoos, hairs for pet animals, hairs, hairs, cosmetics, cosmetics, shampoos, shampoos, pharmaceutical shamps, etc., 25 category category of goods, and 3 category of goods of category 25 category of goods;

C. On April 6, 2017, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Defendant’s Intervenor of his/her submission of his/her opinion on the foregoing grounds for rejection on May 30, 2017, on the ground that “The trademark of this case is identical or similar to the Defendant’s prior registered trademark, the mark, and the designated goods, and thus, cannot be registered.” (2) The Plaintiffs submitted a written opinion on the foregoing grounds for rejection on May 30, 2017. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered the decision of rejection on July 31, 2017 on the ground that “The foregoing grounds for rejection have not been resolved even if the trademark was reviewed by the Plaintiff’s written opinion, etc.”

3. The Plaintiffs, on January 2017.