1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant’s registered trademark (Evidence 2, 21 No. 1) / the filing date of the application / the filing date of the trademark registration / the filing date of the trademark registration / the filing date of the trademark registration : C/D//E 2) previous : 3) The designated goods classified into the category of goods: the bed of Category 20, the spons of Category 20, the spons of bed, spons of bed, bedping, bedping, sponsing, locking, sponsing, locking, unmetallic metal materials for bed, books, furnitures, furnitures, furnitures, furniture, sponsing, sponsing, sponsing, sponsing and sponsing.

B. Plaintiff’s pre-use trademark 1): Articles 14(1) and 18(2) of the Act: From around 193 to around 193

C. On July 24, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) the instant registered trademark falls under Article 34(1)7 of the Trademark Act because it is similar to the prior registered trademark (F), (g) and the prior registered service mark (H) by the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant on July 24, 2018; and (b) the Plaintiff’s registration of the instant registered trademark falls under Article 34(1)7 of the Trademark Act; and (c) the trademark is likely to cause misconception and confusion as to the source of the pre-use trademarks widely known in the trade industry, as it is similar to the pre-use trademarks of the pre-use trademarks, which are “the number, number, and fluenite,” thereby causing confusion as to the source; and (d) the trademark registration is filed for an illegal purpose with the intention of taking advantage of

Article 34(1)7, 12, and 13 of the Trademark Act is not applicable because the registered trademark of this case is not similar to the prior registered trademark, prior registered service mark, and prior registered trademark of this case, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on September 11, 2019 (Evidence A).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 21 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (the grounds for revocation of the trial decision) is that the registered trademark of this case is remarkably recognized in the Republic of Korea at the time of application and decision of registration.