1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 5, 2018 (No. 2018Dang2366) is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration number 1) / filing date of the instant registered trademark (Evidence 2) / filing date of the application / renewal registration: Trademark F/G/H/I 2: Marks for agricultural product reasons of Category 05 classified into the category of goods of Category 3: bean, bean area in the Republic of Korea, bean area, green bean area, rice of Category 29 classified into the category of goods, rice of Category 30 classified into the category of goods, smelted rice of Category 30 classified into the category of goods, smelted rice of Category 31 classified into the category of goods, agricultural and mountain seeds, and agricultural products.

B. The Plaintiff used the following marks in a manner indicated on the rice package: (a) the trademark subject to confirmation (Evidence A).

1) Marks: 2) Products: Rice

C. The process of the instant decision (Evidence 1) revealed that the Plaintiff’s use of 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 since the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a trial to confirm the scope of the trademark right, and the mark of the instant registered trademark, which is identical to the instant registered trademark, are common in the part of the trademark subject to confirmation, and since the Plaintiff’s use of the challenged rice constitutes a trademark which is commonly used for rice products or the quality of “rice products,” the Plaintiff’s use of 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. 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on December 5, 2018, after examining the instant case as 2018Da23666, since the trademark subject to confirmation is similar to the instant registered trademark.

[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 “mergic rice” or “mergic rice” common to the registered trademark of this case and the trademark subject to confirmation by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff is a trademark for rice, or a trademark indicated in a common way in the quality of goods.