1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Basic facts

(a) Date and number of the application of the pending service mark 1): C/D2: 3) Designated service mark: The applicant for a hospital business of Category 44 classified by service business: the plaintiff

(b) Composition of pre-registered service mark 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number: E/F/G2: 3 designated service business: beyond the second half of category 44; and

C. On October 16, 2012, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the grounds for rejection on the ground that “the pending service mark falls under Articles 8(1) and 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act and is ineligible to obtain registration of a service mark.” The Plaintiff submitted a written opinion to the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office on February 18, 2013, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rejected the registration of the pending service mark on April 29, 2013 on the ground that “the pending service mark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act and is ineligible to obtain registration of the pending service mark.” (ii) On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication seeking the revocation of the instant decision of rejection with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal under KRW 2013 Won4051.

On November 17, 2014, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that “The instant pending service mark falls under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act because it is identical or similar to the prior registered service mark, its mark, and its designated service mark, and thus, the refusal decision of this case, which rejected the registration, is reasonable.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion refers to the “SUM” portion of the instant pending service mark and the prior-registered service mark, which is referred to as the “detent.” However, in relation to “a hospital business” or “abstinate business,” which is the designated service business, it cannot be an essential part because the distinctiveness is weak, and if both marks are comprehensively observed, the appearance, concept, and name are different.

Therefore, the pending service mark is a prior registered service mark and its mark.