1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Registered trademark 1) trademark registration number / filing date / registration date: C/D/E 2) Gu: Designated goods classified as Category 3: Category 1 Ga, cosmetic, cosmetic, cosmetic for Hague Experts, Gazers, Gazers, Gazers;

(b) Goods using pre-use trademarks 1) the pre-use trademarks 1 A: The period of use for the pre-use trademarks 1(A): Defendant D: from 2005 (see evidence 7-2(a)) for the pre-use trademarks 2) for the pre-use trademarks 2(a) for the pre-use trademarks 2(b): The period of use for the pre-use trademarks 1982 (see evidence 7-2(a)) for the pre-use trademarks 2(a): the period of use for the pre-use trademarks 1982.

C. The Defendant filed for a registration invalidation trial against the Plaintiff who is the trademark holder of the instant registered trademark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal (hereinafter “instant petition for a trial”). The Defendant asserted that “The instant registered trademark was a trademark applied and registered for unjust purposes to obtain unjust profits, such as taking advantage of the credit recognized as the Defendant’s source indication from domestic and foreign users in the cosmetic field, and thus falls under Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) and filed for a registration invalidation trial against the instant registered trademark (hereinafter “instant petition for a trial”).

(2) After having examined the above request for a trial, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling accepting the above request (hereinafter “instant trial ruling”) on October 19, 2018, on the ground that the instant registered trademark is a mark similar to the pre-use trademark 2, which is recognized to indicate the goods of a specific person to domestic consumers at the time of filing the application, and is applied for and registered for unjust purposes, and thus, its registration should be invalidated by falling under Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act.

【Reasons for Recognition】 The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff from the Defendant.