1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 12, 2019 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 instant registered service mark (A No. 1 No. 1) / the filing date of the registration determination / the registration date / the registration date: C/D/ the date of registration determination: / the Gu : 3) designated service business: A restaurant business specializing in the Gu chilla, a restaurant business specializing in cuba, a restaurant business specializing in cuba, a restaurant business, a food cooking agency business, a food preparation and procurement business, a fashion restaurant business, a fice-only restaurant business, and a restaurant business 4) entitled to registration: the Defendant (FF obtained the registration of the instant registered service mark, and the Defendant completed the registration of transfer on June 12, 2018 due to the full transfer of rights).

B. 1) Former marks of prior use 1: The Plaintiff newly added 3 marks of prior use from the materials from the pleading as of February 6, 2020, as of February 6, 2020, 3) goods using the trademark: 3 users, such as the processed chills, chills, and chills: Plaintiff

C. The trial decision of this case (No. 2 No. 1) against the Defendant, the holder of the instant registered service mark, the Intellectual Property Tribunal, asserting that “The instant registered service mark is likely to cause confusion as to the mark 1, 2, and source known as the Plaintiff’s mark at the time of the decision to register the instant registered service mark, and thus, constitutes Article 7(1)11 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same). At the time of filing the application for registration of the instant registered service mark, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial for invalidation of the registration of the instant registered service mark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the ground that “The instant registered service mark falls under Article 7(1)12 of the former Trademark Act as it is used for unlawful purposes, and thus, constitutes a service mark which is similar to the mark 1, 2, and is thus invalid.2).” After examining the goods of this case as the Plaintiff’s registered service mark at the time of domestic consumers or consumers on 19.