1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 5, 2018 on a case No. 2018DaDa2072 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The registration number (Evidence 2) 1)/ the filing date/registration date/Renewal of the instant registered trademark (Evidence 2) / the filing date: Trademark G/H/I 2: 3) The trademarks of category 30 of the designated goods classified into the designated goods and the trademarks of category 3) : the Dominated grain, secondary grain, glue grain, glue grain, glass, food beer, rice (fluor), brus, glusium, lusium, lusium, lusium, lusium, lusium, lusium, lusium, Black, lusium, lusium, lusium, lusium, rice, etc.

B. The Plaintiffs are using the following marks in a manner indicated on the rice package: (a) the trademarks subject to verification (Evidence A 1).

1) Marks: 2) Products: Rice

C. The grounds for the instant decision (Evidence 1) revealed that the Plaintiff’s act of using the challenged trademark does not fall under the scope of the right to the trademark registration of this case pursuant to Article 90(1)2 or 4 of the Trademark Act, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion on December 5, 2018, after examining the instant case under Article 2072 of the Trademark Act. Since the challenged trademark is similar to the instant registered trademark, the Plaintiffs’ act of using the challenged trademark falls under the scope of the right to the trademark registration of this case, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ act of using the challenged trademark falls under the scope of the right to the trademark registration of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The term “meri rice” or “mergic rice” common to the registered trademark of this case and the trademark subject to confirmation among the Plaintiffs and the Intervenors assisting the Plaintiff are trademarks used in rice, or products.