1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 23, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The Defendant’s registered service mark(a) of this case (a evidence 1) / The filing date of the registration decision / the registration date / the registration number: B/C/D2 April 17, 2015: Tourist accommodation brokerage business, tourist accommodation business, tourist accommodation accommodation business, tourist hotel business, cooking and lodging business, terminal accommodation business, accommodation guidance business, accommodation accommodation reservation business, hotel hotel business, temporary accommodation accommodation facility brokerage business, temporary accommodation facility leasing business, camp accommodation accommodation accommodation accommodation business, cruise accommodation condominium business, cruise hotel business, hotel accommodation business, hotel accommodation facility operation business, holiday accommodation facility operation business, holiday camp accommodation service under Category 43 divided into three designated service businesses;

(b) Composition of pre-use trademark (service mark) 1: 2) Goods (service business: The plaintiff; 3 users of clothing sales business;

C. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against the Defendant, who is the holder of the registered service mark of the instant case, on the grounds that the registered service mark falls under Article 7(1)11 and 12 of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) and its registration should be invalidated in relation to the pre-use trademark (service mark). The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the petition for a registration invalidation trial on the grounds that the registered service mark falls under Article 7(1)11 and 12 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; 2015Da3413, Jan. 23, 2017. Thus, the registered service mark of this case does not correspond to the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the grounds that it does not fall under Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The registered service mark “ of this case” is the original trademark.