1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The Defendant’s registered trademark 1) date/ the registration date/ the renewal date/registration number: C/D/ E/F2: 3) Designated goods: C/D/ E/F research in the category of goods

(b) The composition of a challenged mark 1: 2) Goods using the mark: sediment;

C. On March 29, 2016, the Defendant, the trademark holder of the instant registered trademark, is identical or similar to both marks, since the mark subject to confirmation can be referred to and conceptualized only with the part “one thousand years” like the instant registered trademark, and the goods using the mark are also identical or similar to the designated goods of the instant registered trademark, and thus, the mark subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark.

(2) On June 1, 2017, the challenged mark is identical or similar to the emblem and the designated goods of the instant registered trademark, and thus, the Defendant’s request for a trial to confirm the scope of the right was filed on the grounds that “The challenged mark is identical or similar to the emblem and the designated goods of the instant registered trademark.”

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not only the general term widely used to indicate the “Mycheon” of the instant registered trademark, but also the word “Mycheon” of the instant registered trademark and the word “Mycheon” of the instant registered trademark, as well as the word “Mycheon” of the designated goods, which indicates the character of the designated goods. As such, the distinctiveness of the instant registered trademark or the mark subject to confirmation is not recognized.

Even if the registered trademark of this case and the challenged mark are recognized as distinctive character, the trademark of this case and the challenged mark are “Gu” or the challenged mark.