1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 3, 2015 on a case No. 2014 Won3479 shall be revoked.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

(a) Application number 1)/ Application number of the pending service mark 1: 41-2013-5929/2 February 18, 2013: 3) Designated service business: Applicants: the Plaintiff

B. 1) On October 4, 2013, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the grounds for rejection that the instant pending service mark falls under the category (quality, efficacy, content of provision, etc.) recognized as the meaning of “place of introduction or provision of side business” (quality, efficacy, contents of provision, etc.) and thus, it cannot be registered pursuant to Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act, on the ground that the instant pending service mark does not fall under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act by indirectly or explicitly indicating the characteristics of the designated service business, and submitted an opinion that it acquired distinctiveness under Article 6(2) of the Trademark Act for a long time use. The examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rejected the Plaintiff’s decision of refusal on April 7, 2014, on the ground that it falls under the category of “place of introduction or provision of side business.”

3) On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for the revocation of the foregoing decision of refusal (2014 Won3479). On February 3, 2015, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the pending service mark directly represents “place of introduction, referral, or provision of relevant information” falls under Article 6(1)3 of the Trademark Act, and the materials submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have acquired distinctiveness under Article 6(2) of the Trademark Act, and thus, the said decision of refusal is legitimate. 【The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and entire pleadings.