1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 31, 2016 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Date of application/registration date/final renewal date/registration number of the instant registered service mark: C/D/E/ 2 May 25, 2016: 3): Designated service business: The “designated service business of the instant registered service mark, which is the designated service business of the instant registered service mark, is classified as Category 112 as at the time of registration of the service mark, but the classification of goods was converted into Category 43 as at July 6, 2006 upon application for registration of the conversion of the classification of goods according to the International Product Classification. 4) A registered service mark owner: Defendant

(b) A mark subject to verification 1) Gu : A service business using the word 2) : 3 users of the traditional Korean food restaurant business (c c c lunc lunc lunc lunc lun

C. 1) On December 10, 2015, the Defendant used the trademark subject to confirmation with a special distinctive character for distinguishing it from another’s service business, not with a trade name indicated in a common way, and the part of “private source” does not constitute a conspicuous geographical name, and thus, the trademark subject to confirmation is entirely amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

(1) Article 51(1)1 and 3 of the Trademark Act does not fall under the scope of protection of the instant registered service mark, and the registered service mark of this case belonged to the scope of protection of the instant registered service mark, and filed a request for active confirmation of the scope of protection of a trademark subject to confirmation by asserting that the instant registered service mark acquired distinctiveness by use. (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated as the case of 2015Da5574 and decided October 31, 2016, and the mark subject to confirmation is identical or similar to the instant registered service mark and the mark, and cannot be deemed as a case where the instant registered service mark and the mark are indicated in a common way, and as such, the part of the mark subject to confirmation cannot be deemed as a conspicuous geographical name.