1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 27, 2018 on the case No. 2017Da355 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

가. 피고의 이 사건 등록서비스표(갑 제2호증) 1) 출원일/등록일/등록번호: C/D/E 2) 구성: 3 지정 서비스업: 서비스업류 구분 제43류의 간이식당업, 극장식주점업, 다방업, 레스토랑업, 바서비스업, 뷔페식당업, 서양음식점업, 스낵바업, 식당체인업, 음식조리대행업, 일본음식점업, 제과점업, 주점업, 카페업, 중국음식점업, 커피전문점업, 한식점업, 일반음식점업, 휴게음식점업

나. 원고의 선출원서비스표(갑 제3호증) 1) 출원일/등록일/등록번호: F/G/H 2) 구성: 3) 지정 서비스업: 서비스업류 구분 제43류의 떡볶이 전문점 경영업, 떡볶이 전문점 체인업, 떡볶이전문 간이식당업, 떡볶이전문 레스토랑업, 떡볶이전문 바(bar 서비스업, 떡볶이전문 분식점업, 떡볶이전문 뷔페식당업, 떡볶이전문 셀프서비스식당업, 떡볶이전문 스낵바업, 떡볶이전문 식당업, 떡볶이전문 식당체인점업, 떡볶이전문 식품소개업, 떡볶이전문 음식조리대행업, 떡볶이전문 음식준비조달업, 떡볶이전문 일반음식점업, 떡볶이전문 카페업, 떡볶이전문 패스트푸드식당업

C. On February 8, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) against the Defendant, who is the holder of the instant registered service mark under the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2017Da3555; and (b) the instant registered service mark is similar to the earlier application service mark, the mark, and its designated service business; (c) thus, the instant registered service mark constitutes Article 8(1) of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

In addition, there is a concern for consumers to be aware by taking advantage of the credit accumulated in the earlier application service mark widely recognized as the Defendant's source mark among the traders or consumers in the domestic related industries, resulting in misconception and confusion about the source of goods or service.