1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

(a) The Defendant’s registered service mark (a evidence 1) 1)/ Date of the filing of the registration decision / the date of registration / the date of registration / Registration : D/ E/F2 of December 11, 2014: 3) designated service business: sexual surgery business, outer surgery business, place of imposition, treatment service business, hospital hospital business (excluding dental treatment business), skin management business, skin beauty business, cremation business (excluding dental treatment business, marina business);

(b) The filing date of the instant prior-registered service mark (No. 5) 1)/ the registration date / registration number: G/H/I2: the medical machinery, equipment leasing business, medical assistance business, medical counsel business, medical service, X-ray leasing business, medical information provision business, medical examination business, pharmaceutical selection, technical service business, pharmaceutical information provision business, nursing, health care business, thrology correction business, physical therapy business, remote medical treatment service business, medical care service business, hospital service business, pathology service business, pathology service business, sexual surgery service business, and imposed business;

C. On December 10, 2015, Plaintiff B, the holder of the instant registered service mark “” in the Intellectual Property Tribunal under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”). The instant registered service mark is merely an alteration of the order of “FIL” and “TX”, which is a constituent part of the instant registered service mark “”, and it is merely an addition of “N” with the sound of “n” among them. Accordingly, the registered service mark is similar to the prior registered service mark and its appearance, name, and concept, and thus, its registration should be invalidated.

The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal asserted to the purport that the instant registered service mark was invalidated, and filed a petition for registration invalidation trial against the instant registered service mark. (2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the said petition for adjudication as the case of 2015Da572, and on May 2, 2017, it cannot be deemed that Plaintiff B was an interested party entitled to file a petition for registration invalidation trial.