1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 23, 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 Defendant’s filing date of the instant registered service mark (No. 1) 1/ The Defendant’s application for the registration of the instant registered service mark on March 16, 2012 is a service mark whose origin, quality, and raw materials are indicated in a common way as of March 16, 2012, and thus, the Defendant’s application for the registration of the instant registered service mark cannot be registered as it falls under Article 6(1)3 and 4 of the Trademark Act.

Article 6(1)3 and 4 of the Trademark Act provides that “The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal shall file a petition with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal for an appeal against the foregoing decision of refusal, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal shall examine the petition for appeal to the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal.” On April 1, 2013, the registered service mark of this case falls under Article 6(1)3 and 4 of the Trademark Act, but the registered service mark acquired distinctiveness by the use of Article 6(2) of the Trademark Act.

On the ground of the foregoing, the Court rendered a trial ruling citing the Defendant’s above request for a trial. / The date of registration/registration number: T/L/V 2: 3) Designated service business: The designated service business: C/ 43 of the classification of service businesses (the use of the catched in the inshore) and the specialized exclusive restaurant business (the use of the catched in the inshore). The designated service business in this case is collectively referred to as the “designated service business”. The designated service business in this case is referred to as the “a cafeteria business, etc. using the Dodo Do Hado Do Hado Do Do Do Do Do Do Do naco.” (Evidence 2). The Plaintiffs are recognized as having used the registered service mark in this case against the Defendant, who is the holder of the registered service mark in this case, and the registered service mark in this case constitutes the “registered service business” under Article 16(1)4(1)6(1) of the former Trademark Act and Article 16(2)15(1) of the former Trademark Act.