1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

가. 피고의 이 사건 등록서비스표(갑1호증) 1) 출원일/ 등록일/ 등록번호 : B/ C/ D 2) 구 성 : 3 지정서비스업 : 서비스업류 구분 제43류의 식당체인업, 레스토랑업, 간이식당업, 다방업, 뷔페식당업, 서양음식점업, 셀프서비스식당업, 스낵바업, 음식조리대행업, 음식준비조달업, 일본음식점업, 제과점업, 주점업, 중국음식점업, 카페업, 카페테리아업, 커피전문점업, 패스트푸드식당업, 한식점업, 바서비스업

(b) Filing date 1)/registration date / extinguishment date/registration number / : E/F/G/H2) old : 3) Authorized service business: A person holding the right to register a simple restaurant business, Lestocing business, community restaurant business, group restaurant business, accelerator service, food introduction business, food preparation service business, food preparation service business, Japanese restaurant business, resting unemployment 4): I;

(c) The date of application 1) of the Plaintiff’s prior-use service mark (a evidence 3) / the date of registration / the date of extinguishment / the registration / the registration number: June 11, 2009 / December 22, 2010 / July 25, 2016 / 204923 2): 3-use service business: cafeteria business, general restaurant business;

D. On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff’s trial decision of this case (Evidence A4 No. 1) against the Defendant, the holder of the instant registered service mark “” at the Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 13, 2015, and Article 7(1)8 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

② Also, the registered service mark of this case is similar to the prior-use service mark “ ”, which is well known to ordinary consumers to be perceived as the Plaintiff’s service mark, and thus, there is concern for consumers to deceive consumers. Thus, Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act is also applicable.

③ Furthermore, the registered service mark of this case is the Plaintiff.