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 registration date/registration number of the instant registered trademark 1: 3) Designated goods on April 16, 2015 / 2015 / 11046 / (2) of the instant registered trademark 1: 3) the flusium for the use of fruit under Chapter 03 (excluding fluss, flus, cosmetics for skin care, cosmetics for bath, cosmetics for bath, cosmetics for bath, fluss, flusss, flus, flus, ymbbs, ymbs, humbs, shampers, shampers, taxes, shampoo, shampoos, carbs, crins, carpets, pets, shampoos, shampoos, flus, pets, shamperss, shampers for pet animals, elus, and equipment hold.

B. As to the application of Article 7(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) to the pre-use trademark, the pre-use trademark is subject to Article 7(1)7. As to the application of Article 7(1)9, 11, and 12 of the former Trademark Act, the pre-use trademark is subject to pre-use trademark.

1) The date of application 1A of the registered trademark prior to use / the registration date / registration number: Designated goods to be used on January 13, 2011 / 0932917(b)(c): The designated goods to be used: (a) the c) users and right-holder of the registered trademark prior to use 2(A) of Category 03 of the goods classification: the date of application of the registered trademark prior to use 2(a) / the date of registration / the registration number: the date of September 17, 2012 / the date of registration / the registration / the registration number of the registered trademark: (c) the designated goods to be used: 03 of the goods classification of goods (limited to those containing bamboo) and the right-holder of the right-holder: the Plaintiff.

C. (1) On November 7, 2016, the Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration on the ground that “the registered trademark of this case falls under Article 7(1)7, 9, 11, and 12 of the former Trademark Act in relation to the registered trademark prior to use.” (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal on the ground that “the registered trademark of this case shall be invalidated as it falls under Article 7(1)7, 9, 11, and 12 of the former Trademark Act.” On November 7, 2016, the registered trademark of this case cannot be deemed as an essential part with distinctive character of the remaining designated goods (hereinafter “each of the designated goods of this case”) other than spawn.