1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

(a) The Plaintiff’s registered service mark 1) registration number / the filing date / the filing date: 3) the organization of the registered service mark D/B/C2: The designated service business No. 35: the marketing service business via the Internet (refer to paragraph (2) of the attached Table): The Internet electronic commerce (Internet website) industry, etc. (refer to paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2);

B. The Defendant’s mark and the use service business is mainly a company engaged in electronic commerce in the website of “human-frequency shopping mall (www. interspak.com)” and the website of “human-frequency mobile app (m.shop. inters. Sp.com.com.com.” (hereinafter “Defendant’s operating website”), and used the Defendant’s mark “,” and “,” in the product advertisements sold by the Defendant (attached Form 3) as follows.

In addition, the Defendant used the mark containing the term “TIMF SALE” or “TIMF” (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s used mark”) as follows, including the Defendant’s mark indicated in paragraph (3) of the attached list, using the term “TIMF SALE” or “TIPE date” (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s used mark”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s registered service mark and the Defendant’s Defendant’s use mark constitute an act of infringing the Plaintiff’s registered service mark right on the Plaintiff’s registered service mark (hereinafter “instant registered service mark right”). Since the Plaintiff’s use of the Defendant mark constitutes an act of infringing the Plaintiff’s registered service mark right on the Plaintiff’s registered service mark (hereinafter “instant registered service mark right”), the Plaintiff’s appearance is identical to that of “TIE SALE” and both are identical to “TIE date,” and the Plaintiff’s use of the mark is directly aware that both are generally related to shopping, it is likely to cause confusion as to the source of trade service business.