1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) Trademark 1) No. 1/ Date of application/registration date: C/D/E2) previous designated goods: C/D/E-type 3 classification of goods, cosmetics for snowbrow, scambrows, meck-type cosmetics, bathing cosmetics, hand-to-kaks, sknckbing cosmetics, sknckes, sknckes, human body direction-setting agents (fromatics, social meck, cambing cosmetics, paints and dykes, bark-type cosmetics, bark-type and fyd cosmetics, Handbling, buck-type, cremation, cremation, cremation-type documentarys, cremation-types, cremation-type standards, cosmetics, cosmetics for cremation-types;

(b) Prior registered service mark 1) trademark registration number / filing date / registration date: F/G/H2) old: 3) Designated service business: Person entitled to registration: Plaintiff

C. On September 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial seeking invalidation of the instant registered trademark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendant who is a trademark holder of the instant registered trademark, stating that “The instant registered trademark is identical or similar to the prior registered service mark and concept, and its designated goods service business is also similar, so its registration should be invalidated as it falls under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).” (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the said request for a trial at 2017Da1435, and thereafter on September 7, 2018, “the instant registered trademark has some aspects similar to the prior registered service mark, but it is difficult to view it as a similar mark because it is used together with the same or similar service business to cause mistake or confusion as to the source of goods, and thus, it does not constitute the Plaintiff’s trial decision under Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act.”