1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) Registered trademark 1) Date of application/registration date//registration number: C/D/E 2: 3) Designated goods: Right holder for medical Onnuri failure 4) classified into category 10: Defendant;

(b) 1) Date of application / Date of registration / Number / : F/ G/H2: 3) Designated goods: Right holder: I: medical Onnuri factoring, medical coolant 4) classified into category 10:

C. On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) against the Defendant on March 16, 2017, the registered trademark was wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; and (b) the same applies hereinafter.

(2) On October 1, 2018, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on invalidation of trademark registration by asserting that the trademark falls under Article 8(1)(2) and filed a trial on invalidation of trademark registration (2017Da1812) on the ground that the trademark of earlier application is similar to the trademark of earlier application, and thus, the registered trademark does not correspond to Article 8(1) of the former Trademark Act even without examining the similarity of designated goods.

(hereinafter “instant adjudication decision”). 【No ground for recognition”, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination as to the propriety of the instant trial decision

A. The main point of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff’s first earlier application trademark does not form a new concept beyond the meaning of simply combining the “easure” and “nur”, and it is difficult to view that separate observation of the constituent parts of the earlier application trademark is inseparably indivisible to the extent that it is difficult to be natural in the general transaction.

Moreover, the phrase “easure” falls under a mark that directly affects the efficacy of medical hot factorings or air conditioners for medical use, which is the designated goods, and thus, has weak distinctiveness, and thus, the part of “nur” falls under the essential part.

Since a registered trademark is referred to as "Haru" and concept, it is similar to a trademark because the name and concept of "Haru", the essential part of the earlier application trademark, correspond to those of the earlier application.

. As such,