1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) Composition B/C2 of the filing date/application number of the pending service mark 1 of this case: Funeral business of Category 45, funeral home business of Category 45, classification of service business;

B. On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment to the effect that the service mark was amended with the following constituent marks (hereinafter “instant amendment”), and the amended mark is “instant amended service mark.”

2) Composition: (2) On October 17, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office dismissed the instant amendment on the ground that “the title and concept of a service mark has no substantial effect, but has a substantial effect on its external appearance.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication to revoke the decision to dismiss the correction (No. 2016 No. 11).

3) On April 18, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “The instant amendment constitutes a change in the substance of the service mark registration application, and it is difficult to see that the amendment constitutes a change in the substance of the service mark registration application. However, there was a big difference in the overall appearance as the figure was deleted due to the amendment and the background was changed to the color of the image that was kept on the basis, and the overall appearance was changed to a mark without identity in light of the transaction society, and it was changed to a mark without identity in the transaction society. It is difficult to view that the amendment was merely an additional deletion of the part under Article 16(1)4 of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply).” [The purport of the entire pleadings] of the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The main point of the illegality of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the part centered on the distinctiveness of the patent application service mark of this case is “lives hall of extreme birth,” and the shape and the shape of the stimulative pattern are merely the background located subsequent to the part of the text, and it does not have distinctiveness separately from the text and the non-distinctive part.