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

가. 이 사건 등록상표 (1) 출원일/ 등록일/ 등록번호 : B/ C/ D (2) 표장 : (3) 지정상품 : 상품류 구분 제25류의 가죽신, 고무신, 고무장화덧신, 골프화, 구둣창, 나막신, 낚시용화(靴), 농구화, 단화, 뒷축(Heels), 등산화, 럭비화, 레이스부츠, 목욕용 샌달, 목욕용 슬리퍼, 반부츠, 방한화, 복싱화, 부츠, 비닐화, 비치슈즈, 샌달, 스키화, 슬리퍼, 신발깔창, 신발안창, 신발용 갑피, 신발용 뒷굽, 신발용 미끄럼 방지구, 신발용 앞굽, 신발용 철제장식, 야구화, 운동화, 에스파토신발 또는 샌달, 오버슈즈, 우화, 육상경기용화, 작업화, 장화, 짚신, 체조화, 축구화, 편상화, 하키화, 핸드볼화

(b) Marks (1): Marks, , ... (2) Goods of actual use: Modation;

C. (1) On October 20, 2014, the Defendant asserted that “The registration of the instant registered trademark shall be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act, as the trademark owner, exclusive licensee, or non-exclusive licensee has not been used in the Republic of Korea for three or more consecutive years prior to the filing date of the request for the revocation trial without justifiable grounds, on the grounds that the registered trademark of this case is not used in the Republic of Korea for all of the designated goods.”

(2) After examining the above request for a trial by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board as 2014Da2580, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant trial decision cited by the Defendant on November 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether it falls under Article 73 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act

A. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence established prior to the facts of recognition.

(1) As to the instant registered trademark, on February 27, 2013, the trademark right was transferred to the Plaintiff from “E” and the exclusive license was registered and registered as to “F” on September 18, 2009.