1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Registration number/application date/registration date/registration date: Service mark registration B/C/D 2/D 2) old service business: The designated service business entity: The defendant, the defendant, who has the right to register the business entity, in the case of Morsging wholesale business, Mumbre retail business, small wholesale business, small retail business, medicinal wholesale business, medicinal retail business, Cheongju retail business, Cheongju retail business, tableju retail business, trusting wholesale business, legal principal retail business, wholesale wholesale business, negligence wholesale business, wholesale wholesale business, wholesale wholesale business, wholesale wholesale business, wholesale wholesale business, wholesale wholesale business, wholesale wholesale business, wholesale wholesale business, wholesale wholesale business, wholesale wholesale business, wholesale wholesale business, retail business, sluuk-ju retail business, sluk-ju retail business, sluk-ju retail business, sluk-ju retail business classified under Chapter 35:

(b) Composition of a prior-use mark 1: (The body of a body of a person), (b) products used and service business: (a) products used and service business: The plaintiff; (b) 3 users of minging, tableing, minging, and wholesale and retail business;

C. 1) The Plaintiff filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against the Defendant with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the ground that “The instant registered service mark is extremely similar to the prior-use mark well-known as a specific person’s mark, and it is likely to cause mistake or confusion among ordinary consumers as to the origin, etc. of the registered service mark if used in the designated service business, and its registration should be invalidated as it falls under Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply).” 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on this as the head of the Intellectual Property Tribunal and deliberated on August 1, 2016, on the ground that “The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone is insufficient to recognize that the prior-use mark was perceived as the origin of a specific person among ordinary consumers,” and thus, the instant registered service mark does not constitute the Plaintiff’s request for a judgment under Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is summary.