1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Registration number/application date/registration date: trademark registration C/D/E 2): Price comparison service business, corporate management counseling business, business plan to promote the sale of goods and service business: business to transmit information through web site; business to provide user location information using satellite and telecommunications equipment; business to provide location information using satellite and telecommunications equipment; business to provide location information using Internet; business to provide location information using Internet; business to provide location information; business to transmit location information using communications networks; business to act analysis for medical purposes in Chapter 44 of the classification of goods; medical counseling business; business to provide medical information; business to promote the sale of goods and service business; business to provide information through web site; business to provide smartphones in Chapter 38 of the classification of goods;

(b) Composition 1: . . . . . . . . . 2) Products using: The Defendant; the period of use of information industry . 1 . 1 . . 1 . 1 : 1 . 1 . 1 : 4 January 2015;

C. The Defendant’s decision 1) against the Plaintiff as a trademark holder of the instant registered trademark to the Intellectual Property Tribunal. “The registered trademark of this case has grounds for invalidation of registration under Article 34(1)9 and 11 through 13 of the Trademark Act, as well as grounds for invalidation of registration under Article 34(1)9 and 11 through 13 of the Trademark Act, and the registration shall be invalidated as it has been filed without the intention of

“In the instant case,” and filed a petition for adjudication on invalidation of registration of the instant registered trademark.

2) After reviewing the above request for adjudication as 3025 per 2019, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial on July 21, 2020, “The registered trademark of this case is similar to the trademark of prior use known among consumers, the product is in an economic relation with each other, and the mark is similar. Thus, the trademark constitutes only a single consumer's flag at the latter part of Article 34(1)12 of the Trademark Act, and the trademark is also an imitated trademark under Article 34(1)13 of the Trademark Act as it was for an improper purpose at the time of filing the application.

The trademark of this case is accepted by the defendant's assertion on the ground that it is "."