1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 5, 2015 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The application for international registration is filed as seen below, and falls under the trademark service mark, but it is only called “instant applied trademark” for convenience.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

(1) Date of application (date of international registration)/application number (international registration number): Composition of February 3, 2012 / 1142844(2): 3) Designated goods and service business: 4) applicant: Plaintiff

B. On February 3, 2012, the Plaintiff filed for international registration of the instant applied trademark on February 3, 2012, but the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner notified the Plaintiff of the grounds for rejection that “the instant applied trademark falls under Articles 3, 6(1)3, 7, and 10(1) of the Trademark Act, and thus, cannot be registered.” 2) On September 2, 2013, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner submitted the amendment and written opinion on April 22, 2014, despite the Plaintiff’s submission of the written opinion, the instant applied trademark cannot be registered as falling under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act. However, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner issued a decision to refuse registration of the instant applied trademark on the ground that the instant applied trademark falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act, and determined that the grounds for rejection was annulled with respect to the part of violation of Article 3 and Article 10(1) of the Trademark Act among the aforementioned notification of grounds for rejection.

Accordingly, on May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial against the foregoing decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal.

3) After that, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial decision on January 5, 2015, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that “the trademark applied for trademark of this case is not only the designated goods and the use of the designated service business, but also it cannot be identified for consumers to indicate the goods and service business related to anyone’s business.” 【The trademark applied for trademark of this case falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the Trademark Act’s Article 6(1) of the Trademark Act’s Article 6(1) of the Trademark Act’s Article 6(1)3 and 7. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The trademark of this case is the first high 1 trademark.