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

(a) Registration number 1)/ filing date/registration date of the instant registered service mark 1) / : Designated service business consisting of 3) designated goods: A water-type 9-type type 1 : a water-driven gyke, swimming ear tag for swimming, lock-out ear, lock-out earer for diving, lock-out earing, lock-out, lock-up, lock-up, respiratory equipment, respiratory equipment (except for human smoking), life raft, life raft, life raft, life boat, fire boat, fire boat, product classification 12-type 12-type passenger ships, street, motorboat, boat, boat, boats, boats, boats, boats, boats, boats, boats, boats, boats, vessel boats, vessel ropes, scoots, vessel ropes, vessel sckeer, vessel boat, sea boat, water boat, water boat charter, yacht, knton, trademark right holder, water knts, yacht, water boat, water boat, yacht, 4: passenger ships;

B. On July 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a trial seeking revocation of the trademark registration against the Defendant on the ground that “The instant registered trademark was properly used in Korea within three years prior to the filing date of the trial request,” under the Patent Tribunal No. 2017Da2235, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition on May 28, 2019, on the ground that “the instant registered trademark was properly used in Korea” among the designated goods of this case on the grounds that “the instant registered trademark was properly used in Korea within three years prior to the filing date of the trial request.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows, the Defendant did not prove that the registered trademark of this case was used for the designated goods that became the object of the instant revocation trial within three years before the date of the instant revocation trial.