1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 3, 2015 regarding a case No. 2014 won7583 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) Date and number of the application: 16./ No. 40-2013-0084014(2) of December 16, 2013: 3) Designated goods: Electronic publications, electronic books which may be taken out, and street (limited to X-ray films) which may be taken out under Category 9 of the classification of goods:

(b) Date of application 1)/ Date of registration/registration number: 1/11, 200/ September 30, 2000 / No. 40-4780532) of the registered trademark: Designated goods: Type 16 of the classification of goods: The Dial Culture and Arts Planning Research Council, incorporated by the holder of the right to register, for example, paper, printed activity, book, book, book, picture, picture, book, color, bromatic, photograph 4) of the classification of goods:

C. 1) On November 7, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of rejection as to the Plaintiff’s applied trademark of this case on the ground that “the prior registered trademark, the mark, and the designated goods are similar thereto, and thus fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.” (2) On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial against the aforementioned decision of rejection (2014 Won7583) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. On July 3, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for a trial on the ground that “the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the prior registered trademark so that it may cause general consumers to misunderstand or confuse that the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the trademark of this case and the designated goods are identical or similar to the designated goods, and thus cannot obtain trademark registration as they fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The mark of the applied trademark of this case is referred to as “the following” as the Plaintiff’s well-known and well-known corporate image or reputation.

The trademark of this case is different from the prior registered trademark in terms of appearance, name, and concept.

In addition, general consumers in the transaction room have the source of the applied trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark.