1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The registered trademark 1 of this case / Date of application / Date of registration / Date of registration / Date of registration: 40-0790826/ May 23, 2008 / May 27, 2009 / June 22, 2009 : 3) Designated goods: Escream scream, ice cream containers, ice candsckes (ice scke, ice scream mixing, ice ice ice ice sckes, ice ice ice straws, ice ice straws, and ice straws.

(b) Composition of the pre-use trademark and pre-registered trademark 1) : The period of use: (b) the product using the pre-use trademark and pre-registered trademark 1: the period of use: the registration number 1A of the pre-registered trademark 2) / the date of application / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration : (c) the product classification : the registration number / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of renewal / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration / the date of registration : No. 40-0405247/198, June 18, 198; (d) the product classification of the products of pre-registered livestock products 20/198.

C. On May 21, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration (2015Da3262) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the ground that the registered trademark of this case falls under Article 7(1)10, 11, and 12 of the Trademark Act in relation to the pre-use trademark and pre-registered trademark. (2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling citing the Defendant’s request on November 23, 2015 on the ground that “the registered trademark of this case falls under Article 7(1)11 of the Trademark Act, similar to the pre-use trademark widely known as the Defendant’s product mark.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1, Eul evidence No. 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's prior use trademark, etc. of the defendant's grounds for revoking the decision of the plaintiff's assertion are as follows.