1. The domain name of Defendant C among the judgment of the court of first instance on the basis of the appeal by Defendant C.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the case is that the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the service mark that registered the service mark with the genetic testing business, etc. as designated service business, uses the mark similar to the Plaintiff’s service mark and operates genetic testing business as to the Plaintiff, and that Defendant D registered the domain name “F,” which is the same as the Plaintiff’s service mark, and that Defendant C’s use for the domain name as to Defendant C’s business, based on the Plaintiff’s claim for prohibition of infringement of the service mark right and the claim for prevention thereof, seek prohibition of genetic testing business, etc. using the mark similar to the Plaintiff’s service mark on the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim for prohibition of infringement of the service mark right and the claim for prohibition of infringement of the advertisement, etc. using the mark similar to the Plaintiff’s service mark and the destruction of the infringed product. Defendant C sought the procedure for cancellation of the domain name with respect to Defendant C and D, and sought payment of part of KRW 100 million and damages for delay based on tort against Defendant C and E.

The intervenor succeeded to the right in the first instance court, alleging that the intervenor acquired the right to service mark from the plaintiff and succeeded to the claim for damages against the defendant C and D, and the plaintiff withdraws from the lawsuit.

The first instance judgment accepted some of the Intervenor’s claims against Defendant C (the prohibition of genetic testing business, etc. using similar marks, prohibition of advertising using similar marks, etc., and claim for destruction of infringing products). The Intervenor’s remaining claims against Defendant C and all of the claims against Defendant D and E were dismissed. Accordingly, the Intervenor limited to the remaining part against Defendant C except the part of claim for the prohibition of use of the domain name against Defendant C, and Defendant C appealed appealed against the lost part, respectively.

Therefore, the Intervenor’s defendant C.