1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Registration No. 1) / Filing date/registration date of the trademark: Mascar, Mecke business, Mecke business, Meck-type cosmetics, meck-type cosmetics, meck-type cosmetics, meck-type cosmetics, meck-type ck-type cosmetics, meck-type cosmetics, skin-type cosmetics, meck-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-type-based-based-type-type-type-based-type-type-type-type--------

(b) Composition 1: . . . . . . . . . 2) Products using: The Defendant; the period of use of information industry . 1 . 1 . . 1 . 1 : 1 . 1 . 1 : 4 January 2015;

C. The Defendant’s decision 1) against the Plaintiff as a trademark holder of the instant registered trademark to the Intellectual Property Tribunal. “The registered trademark of this case has grounds for invalidation of registration under Article 34(1)9 and 11 through 13 of the Trademark Act, as well as grounds for invalidation of registration under Article 34(1)9 and 11 through 13 of the Trademark Act, and the registration shall be invalidated as it has been filed without the intention of

“In the instant case of filing a petition for adjudication on invalidation of the registration of the trademark.”

2) After having deliberated by the Intellectual Property Tribunal as 3026 on July 21, 2020 after the date of the above request for adjudication, “The registered trademark of this case is similar to the registered trademark of this case which is known among consumers, the product is in an economic relation with each other, and the mark is similar. Thus, it constitutes a trademark with only the consumer of the latter part after Article 34(1)12 of the Trademark Act, and the trademark is also an imitated trademark under Article 34(1)13 of the Trademark Act as it was for an improper purpose at the time of the filing date.

“On the ground that the Defendant’s assertion was accepted and the decision was rendered to invalidate the registration of the trademark of this case (hereinafter “instant decision”).

【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, and Gap No. 1-3 evidence (which has a number) are specially stated.