Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(a) The Plaintiff’s registered trademark 1) registration number / filing date / registration date/ registration date/ renewal date of the trademark registration: Simpleization of Category 25 of the trademark registration C/D/ E// January 10, 201: 3 designated goods: Fluorization, fluorization, leather, golfization, gratization, sandbox, sandbox, skiing, skiing, skidrization, land matchation, gratization, nifving, nifving, handblizing, triflizing, agriculture, flusation, new studs, defratation, gratization, tennis, old wharf, wharf, Taekwondo, work, glusting, lighting, glustinginging, glusinginginginging.

(b) The Plaintiff’s actual-use trademarks 1: (1) actual-use trademarks 1); (2) goods using trademarks 2); sports paintings and slots;

(c) The defendant's covered trademarks 1): (subject trademarks 1), (subject trademarks 2) goods using trademarks 2: clothing and fashion miscellaneous articles, sports paintings, slots, sandboxs and other goods;

D. (1) On October 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) filed against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the instant registered trademark was wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016).

(2) On December 24, 2019, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board claimed that the instant registered trademark falls under Article 73(1)2, and filed a petition for adjudication to revoke the registration of the instant registered trademark. On December 24, 2019, Article 45(1)2 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides that “the Plaintiff, as a trademark right holder of the instant registered trademark, intentionally uses the trademarks used in actual use similar to the instant registered trademark, which are the designated goods, to mislead or confuse the general traders or consumers as to the goods related to the Defendant 1. As such, the instant registered trademark is subject to Article 73(1)2 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same).

Therefore, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal's decision on the application of Article 73 (1) 2 of the former Trademark Act is erroneous, but Article 45 (1) 2 of the former Trademark Act and Article 73 of the former Trademark Act are applied.