The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) The Defendant’s registered trademark (Evidence 2) 1) / the filing date of the application / the filing date of the registration / the filing date of the registration: C/D//D/2: 3) Designated goods classified into the category of goods: Exhibitions, occupations, guidance (training, personal teaching institute business, educational test business, educational test business, educational test business, educational research, information provision business, language school curriculum, language education and training business, language education curriculum, language education and training business, language education instruction business, language education and training business, English private teaching institute management business, English private teaching institute management business, study consultation business, foreign language driving institute business, language education and training business, language education and training business, and training business for cultural and educational purposes of Category 41.

(b) Composition of pre-registered service mark (a evidence 3) 1) / filing date / filing date / filing date/ renewal registration date: F/G/H/2 March 15, 2012: 3 designated goods: Books publishing business, book lending business, kindergarten management, fashion showing business, and art private teaching institute management business classified by category 41;

C. On October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration invalidation trial on the ground that “The registered trademark of this case is identical or similar to the trademark, as it was applied for registration with the trademark identical or similar to the trademark, knowing that it was being used by the Plaintiff through contractual relations, such as a partnership or employment, or business relations or other relations, and falls under Article 34(1)20 of the Trademark Act, and ② the registered service mark, the mark, and the designated goods are identical or similar to those of Article 34(1)7 of the Trademark Act, and thus, the registration should be invalidated. 2) On August 2, 2019, 2019, the Intellectual Property Tribunal filed an application for registration invalidation trial on the ground that “The registered trademark of this case is not identical or similar to the trademark, even though the Defendant knew that it was using or preparing to use it in a partnership or similar business relations, etc. without a legitimate title.”