1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant’s registered trademark 1) filing date/registration date/registration date/registration date/registration number: on November 7, 2012,/ on September 30, 2013,/ on September 4, 2013, 98953 (2) old : 3) the designated goods: books, publications, periodicals, magazines, textbooks, teaching materials (except equipment), telephone numbers, newspapers, music reports, learning places, and white paper (hereinafter “Defendant’s registered trademark”). The Defendant’s registered trademark is “instant registered trademark”.

(b) The mark subject to the plaintiffs' confirmation 1) old : the management of the 2-use service business; the operation of the 2-use teaching institute; the management of the 2-use teaching institute; the operation of the 2-use teaching institute; the operation of the 2-use teaching institute; the management of the 3-year educational institute; the operation of

C. On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for a trial to confirm the scope of right (2015Da3932) with the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant registered trademark, on the grounds that “The challenged mark that the Plaintiff conducts is not similar to the instant registered trademark, and falls under each of Article 51(1)1 through 3 of the Trademark Act, and thus does not have the effect of the instant registered trademark right.” (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the instant petition on the grounds that “The challenged mark is similar to the instant registered trademark, and its use service is similar to the designated goods of the instant registered trademark, and it does not fall under Article 51(1)1 through 3 of the Trademark Act, and thus, falls under the scope of the right of the instant registered trademark.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the grounds for revoking the decision of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Since the challenged mark is not similar to the instant registered trademark, it does not belong to the scope of rights of the instant registered trademark.

B. The effect of the trademark right of this case does not extend to the challenged mark for the following reasons, and thus the challenged mark is subject to confirmation.