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

A. 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number of the instant registered trademark 1: / On December 16, 2005 / on September 20, 2006 / No. 679131(2)): Designated goods: A trademark right holder of the instant registered trademark: The Defendant, who is a trademark right holder of the instant registered goods, for category 29, bean, pota, melter, bean products, bean products, two parts, hens, hens'ns' eggs, hens' eggs, re-ma, fluence, neglect, Dotoitoi

(b) Products using trademarks 1) : 1) Composition of a trademark in actual use 1 (A) : Two copies: Defendant 2) Composition of a trademark in actual use 2 (a) : two copies: Defendant 2;

C. On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board for a trial seeking the revocation of the instant registered trademark with respect to the designated goods of this case, stating that “any trademark right holder, exclusive licensee, or non-exclusive licensee has not used the instant registered trademark in Korea without justifiable grounds for three or more years prior to the filing date of the instant petition for trial, and thus, the registration must be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act.” (2) On July 31, 2015, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board filed a petition for a trial with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board against the Defendant, taking into account trade norms and the average English education level of domestic consumers, it is difficult to deem “1” used in two copies of the instant registered trademark to be deviating from the scope of the identity of the instant registered trademark. Accordingly, within three years prior to the filing date of the instant petition for trial, the instant registered trademark was properly indicated and used by the Defendant, a trademark holder, as designated goods in Korea.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The use of the trademark 1 in actual use, which is the main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion, does not constitute the use of a trademark in a form that can be seen the same as the instant registered trademark in light of the common sense of the transaction society.