1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The filing date and the application number of the Plaintiff’s pending service mark (A No. 1) of this case: 3 designated service business: Data communications business, mail address delivery business, radio communication business, mobile telephone service business, mobile Internet connection service business, satellite-based data/recording business, telephone information provision business, telephone communications service, Handphonephone communications business, Internet television broadcasting business, satellite communications service, satellite network connection service, satellite, data/recording service, data/recording service through the Internet, Internet mobile phone display business, data and communications facility business, Internet broadcasting service, data-lease service, Internet access control business, data-lease service, Internet broadcasting service, Internet broadcasting service, Internet broadcasting service, Internet access control business, Internet broadcasting service, Internet broadcasting service, mobile phone display service through the Internet, information transmission business via the Internet, and information transmission business via domestic and overseas network;

B. On December 11, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the submission of his/her opinion on the Plaintiff’s pending service mark on the ground that “the instant pending service mark is a large capacity Internet service,” and thus, it cannot be registered as a service mark because it falls under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply). Accordingly, the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion on February 11, 2015, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office still rejected the application for registration of the pending service mark on April 6, 2015, on the ground that the grounds that the grounds for rejection under Article 6(1)3 and 7 of the former Trademark Act could not be resolved, the Patent Tribunal rejected the application for registration of the pending service mark on September 3, 2015,” the Patent Tribunal or the Intellectual Property Tribunal decided to reject the application for registration of the service mark.