1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 27, 2015 on the case No. 2014 won 43 shall be revoked.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The filing date and the application number of the trademark 1 of this case: The designated goods consisting of No. 40-201-54352, Aug. 29, 2012: 3): The goods classified as the bags of Category 18, the new shoes of Chapter 25, and the new uniforms of Chapter 25 (attached Form 1). (b) The filing date of the prior registered trademark 1)/ the registration date/registration date/registration number: 8674, Jan. 6, 200: 3): The designated goods consisting of the documents of Category 18, the documents of Category 25, the new clothes of Chapter 25 (attached Form 2).

4) The obligee entitled to registration: Bolibri Kent Angeles (hereinafter referred to as “Sari”)

A person shall be appointed.

C. On December 16, 2013, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on the ground that “the prior registered trademark, the mark, and the designated goods are similar to those of the prior registered trademark, thereby falling under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act, and the designated goods are similar to those of the prior registered trademark and are in close relation with the designated goods, etc., thereby falling under Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act.”

(A) On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for an appeal against the foregoing rejection ruling with the Intellectual Property Tribunal (2014 won 43). On February 27, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “The instant applied trademark is similar to the instant registered trademark and its appearance are identical and similar to any other trademark, and its designated goods fall under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act, and the designated goods are identical or similar to the prior registered trademark clearly recognized as a trademark among domestic and foreign consumers, and are used for unjust purposes, such as obtaining unfair profits, and thus, cannot obtain trademark registration by falling under Article 7(1)12 of the Trademark Act.”

(A) [Evidence 2] / [Grounds for Recognition] / Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff's assertion.