1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 28, 2018, the Defendant asserted that “The Plaintiff’s registered trademark/service mark indicated in B (B) of this case is not used in the Republic of Korea for not less than three consecutive years prior to the filing date of a request for a trial on the designated goods and the designated service business (hereinafter “designated service business subject to cancellation”), and thus, the registration of the trademark/service mark on the designated service business subject to cancellation should be revoked.” The Defendant filed a request against the Plaintiff for a trial on cancellation of registration of the trademark/service mark on the designated service business subject to cancellation of the trademark/service mark of this case (hereinafter “instant request for a trial”).

(2) On November 22, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling accepting the instant request for a trial on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff or exclusive or non-exclusive licensee, who is the right holder of the registered trademark or service mark, has properly used the instant registered trademark or service mark in Korea within three years before the date of the instant request for a trial, and it is not recognized that there are justifiable reasons for not using the registered trademark or service mark.

B. Plaintiff’s registration number / filing date / registration date / registration date / registration date of the instant registered service mark: The registered trademark/service mark registration C/D/ E//E on March 14, 2012: Computer software, etc. recorded in Category 09 of the classification of goods; the category of goods; electronic books (E-BOK) sales agency, etc. using the Internet in Category 16 of the classification of goods; and books lending business using the Internet in Chapter 35 of the classification of service categories; and the island lending business using the Internet in Chapter 41 of the classification of service categories; there is no dispute over the ground for recognition; Gap’s statements (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); and all pleadings.