1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) Plaintiff’s registered service mark (a evidence 1-2) 1) of this case / Date of application / Date of registration / Date of final renewal / Number of registration : C/D/ E 2 August 4, 2014: 3 designated service business: Class 43 classification of service business;

(b) The Defendant’s mark subject to confirmation (A evidence 1-1) 1) : the service business products using 2) : the tasks of bakeries, and the bread.

C. The process of the instant trial decision (No. 1-1) is that the Plaintiff is the holder of the registered service mark of the instant registered service mark. On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff is the holder of the registered service mark of the instant registered service mark, and the Defendant is similar to the instant registered service mark and its mark. The used service product also is similar to the instant registered service mark, which is the designated service business of the instant registered service mark. Thus, it falls under the scope of the right to the instant registered service mark.

2) The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the instant trial decision by citing the reasoning of the Plaintiff’s appeal on the following grounds: “Cicker” of the challenged mark is merely used to indicate the contents, etc. of the service business under the common sense of the transaction society; thus, even in cases where the challenged mark is used as a trademark or a service mark, the challenged mark is used as a trademark or a service mark as an ordinary name of a specific bread among trade industry or ordinary consumers as of the time of the trial decision, and was amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; and thus, it does not fall under the scope of protection of the registered service mark of this case.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. For the following reasons, the challenged mark is the subject of confirmation.