1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The filing date and application number of the Plaintiff’s trademark(A) 1: B/ C2: 3 designated goods: scientific and technological service business concerning the design of category 42, brand design business, trademark design business, product design consultation business, color design business, printed design business, product design business, product design and development business concerning the design of category 42;

B. The filing date of the pre-registered service mark (No. 3, No. 20 No. 1) / the filing date of the pre-registered service mark (No. 3, No. 20) / the international registration number: D/ E/F 2: 3) the former designated goods and the designated service business: (c) the foregoing is as stated in [Attachment]. (c) The examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office issued a notice to the effect that the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the Plaintiff on March 8, 2018, on the ground that the pre-registered service mark, the mark of this case, and the designated goods are identical or similar to the pre-registered service mark, the trademark of this case cannot be registered as it falls under Article 34(1)7

2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff presented a written opinion that criticizes the contents of the notice of submission of the above opinion on June 20, 2018. However, on August 8, 2018, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “Korea Intellectual Property Office”) presented a written opinion that the trademark of this case differs from the prior registered service mark, but its overall name is similar to the registered service mark, and the designated goods are the same as the designated goods, so it is likely to cause misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of the goods, thereby falling under Article 34(1)7 of the Trademark Act. As a result

On the ground that the trademark of this case was rejected (Evidence B21) on September 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial against the foregoing decision of rejection on September 12, 2018, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on it as the case of 2018 Won3799, and on April 3, 2019, the applied trademark of this case differs from the prior registered service mark and its appearance and concept, but it is highly likely to cause confusion as to the origin of goods due to the same or similar name.