1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s registration number / filing date / registration date of the instant registered trademark: The designated goods: The relationship of rights and duties of Hague for household electricity in Chapter 26 of the classification of goods: The instant registered trademark is registered upon application by F (hereinafter “F”) but it was registered on February 27, 2015 by reason of transfer.

B. The defendant's pre-use trademarks 1 and 2 are identical to the pre-use trademarks 1 and 2 of the decision of this case, and the pre-use trademarks 3 are additionally submitted by the defendant in the lawsuit of this case.

For the pre-use trademark 1 pre-use trademark 3: A user of cosmetic products, such as portable hedge Aeropha, electric hyd, shampoo and shampers: the Defendant

C. On November 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) the registered trademark of this case was wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; and (b) the former Trademark Act (hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) in relation with the pre-use trademarks;

(2) On August 22, 2017, the Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition with the Plaintiff for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the instant registered trademark under Article 7(1)11 and 12, by asserting that the trademark registration should be invalidated. (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal was known on August 22, 2017 to the extent that the prior-use trademarks were to be recognized as indicating the Defendant’s goods among U.S. consumers at the time of the filing date of the instant registered trademark, and the instant registered trademark is similar to the prior-use trademarks, as a whole, to the extent that their appearance are similar to the prior-use trademarks.

In addition, the registered trademark of this case is a trademark applied for unlawful purposes such as fusing the pre-use trademarks known as indicating the goods of the defendant among consumers at the time of the application and obtaining unfair profits.

Therefore, the registered trademark of this case does not need to examine the remaining grounds for invalidation of registration.