1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 7, 2018 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 trademark registration number 1)/ filing date / registration date: C/D/E 2) the former designated goods: Golf banks, golf balls, tampers for golf use, golf score plates, golf-type plates, golf-type plates, golf-types, golf-types, golf-types, golf-types, golf-type showers, golf-type-hackers, golf-type-hackers, golf-type-hackers, golf-type-hackers, golf-type-hackers, and golf-type 4): The defendant;

(b) Prior-use mark 1) Former designated goods: F2) Users and the timing of use: Golf products 3): From 1998 established by the Plaintiff to the date of use (for 1997, the representative director G of the Plaintiff is used as an individual entrepreneur;

C. 1) The Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial on the invalidation of the trademark of this case against the Defendant who is the trademark holder of the instant registered trademark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, on the ground that “The instant registered trademark is identical or similar to the mark widely known as the Plaintiff’s source indication at the time of filing the application, and thus, it constitutes Article 7(1)10 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 10811, Jun. 30, 201; hereinafter the same) because it may cause confusion with the Plaintiff’s goods or business, and constitutes “Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act as it is recognized for unjust purposes, such as credit transfer, and constitutes “Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act.” At the time of determining the registration of the instant registered trademark, it is difficult to view that the registered trademark of this case would cause confusion with the mark and its source known as the Plaintiff’s trademark at the time of filing an application for a trial to the extent that it falls under Article 7(1)1111 of the former Trademark Act.