1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The registered trademark 1) of this case / The filing date of the registration decision / the registration date / the registration date / the renewal date / the registration date: B/C/D2 October 30, 1995 / The 3 designated goods: “documents bags, handbags, non-metallic metal agents wallets, name cards, key bags, strawer cases, straws, barbags, barbags, barbags, Bostons, and 25 categories of goods” in Chapter 18 classification of goods.

(b) Marks 1) A mark: A product using a pre-use trademark (a pre-use trademark 1), (a pre-use trademark 2), (a pre-use trademark 3) and (a pre-use trademark 3): Defendant;

C. On February 10, 2012, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of trademark registration (No. 2012Da368) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the ground that the registered trademark of this case may cause mistake or confusion between the pre-use trademarks and the source, and thus, it falls under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act. (2) On March 14, 2014, the Intellectual Property Tribunal accepted the Defendant’s request for a trial on the ground that the registered trademark of this case falls under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act, and rendered the instant trial decision that the registered trademark of this case should be invalidated.

【Unsatisfyed Facts, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 12-1 through 14-3, Eul’s evidence 19-1 through 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 on the grounds of revocation of the trial decision of this case was not known to the extent that the pre-use trademarks were recognized as trademarks of a specific person at the time of the decision to register the trademark of this case, and there was no room for domestic use for bags, clothes, and shoes before the decision to register the trademark of this case. 2) The provisional use trademarks of this case, designated goods of the registered trademark of this case, are not similar to the provisional use trademarks, and there was no economic relation.

3. Accordingly, the instant case.