1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 1, 2015 on a case No. 2015Da349 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. Registered service mark 1 of this case / Date of application / Date of registration: The designated service business consisting of No. 02998/ December 12, 2013 / December 12, 2013 : 3): The designated service business: the business of cremation research of Category 42, beauty study, and research and study of cosmetics: the Plaintiff

B. Composition of the challenged mark 1: “B”-service business using the 45 cosmetic C&S 2: The business of cremation research, beauty research, and research and study on cosmetics: Defendant

C. 1) On February 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sought a passive confirmation on the scope of right (No. 2015Da349) seeking confirmation that the instant registered service mark and the mark are not identical or similar to the instant registered service mark and the mark do not fall under the scope of the right (hereinafter “instant adjudication”); and (b) the instant adjudication is conducted against the Plaintiff.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant petition for adjudication should be dismissed on the grounds that the mark subject to confirmation is unrelated to the dispute over service right and does not fall under the scope of the right to the registered service mark of this case, on the grounds that there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, the instant petition for adjudication is not an interested party, or that the instant petition for adjudication should be dismissed on the grounds that it is not an interested party

3) On June 1, 2015, the Intellectual Property Tribunal accepted the Defendant’s claim on the following grounds, and rendered a trial decision that the challenged mark does not fall under the scope of the right to the instant registered service mark (hereinafter “instant trial decision”).

A) The Defendant is in the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff and the same kind of business as the Plaintiff may not exclude the possibility of using the challenged mark in the future as a mark for cremation research business, etc.

shall not be deemed unlawful or unlawful.

B) The registered service mark of this case and the mark subject to the confirmation of this case are the same as the designated service business.