1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 4, 2016 on the case shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

가. 피고의 이 사건 등록서비스표(갑2호증) 1) 출원일/ 등록결정일/ 등록일/ 등록번호 : C/ 2015. 9. 24./ D/ E 2) 구 성 : 3 지정서비스업 : 서비스업류 구분 제43류의 다방업, 레스토랑업, 바서비스업, 뷔페식당업, 서양음식점업, 셀프서비스식당업, 스낵바업, 식당체인업, 음식조리대행업, 음식준비조달업, 일본음식점업, 제과점업, 주점업, 중국음식점업, 카페테리아업, 칵테일라운지서비스업, 커피전문점업, 패스트푸드식당업, 한식점업, 항공기기내식제공업

나. 원고의 선사용서비스표 1) 구 성 : 2) 사용서비스업 : 떡볶이 음식점

C. On October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff’s trial decision of this case (Evidence 1 No. 1) against the Defendant, the holder of the right to register the instant registered service mark, which is identical or similar to the prior-use service mark “,” which is recognized as the Plaintiff’s service mark at the time of the decision of registration, and if used together with the prior-use service mark, it is highly likely that consumers mistake and confuse the Defendant’s service as the Plaintiff’s service. Thus, it constitutes a service mark that is likely to mislead consumers under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act as the Plaintiff’s service.

2) In order to constitute a service mark that is likely to deceive consumers as defined in Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act on March 4, 2016, the prior-use service mark must be known to consumers or traders at least to the extent that it can be perceived as a specific person’s service business in domestic general transactions. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be recognized only on the ground that the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful