1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 1, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 1843 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s registered trademark 1) filing date/registration date//registration number: / November 15, 2011 (No. 890154) composition: 3) Designated goods classified as beverages under Category 32, namely, red ginseng X-ray for beverages under Category 32 (hereinafter “contestable goods”).

() The owner of a trademark right of ginseng for beverage consumption, beverage powder, red ginseng powder for beverage use, ginseng X-gu for beverage consumption, red ginseng beverage, ginseng liquor, ginseng liquor, non-certified red ginseng content, carbon content, non- alcohol ginseng content, ginseng KON, non- alcohol-related ginseng content, 4) trademark right holder: the Plaintiff

B. (1) On June 28, 2016, the Defendant did not use the Plaintiff’s registered trademark for the designated goods in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years prior to the filing date of the said request for revocation without good cause, and thus, the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same applies).

(2) On November 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) recognized the Plaintiff’s trademark registration revocation trial as a legitimate interested party; and (b) rendered a trial decision to accept the Defendant’s request for the said trial on the grounds that the grounds for the said assertion is recognized as well; (c) the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial decision on the revocation of trademark registration by asserting that the registration should be revoked under Article 73(1)3 and (4).

(hereinafter “instant trial decision”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination as to the propriety of the instant trial decision

A. On June 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) indicated and distributed a registered trademark on the advertisement of the product at issue. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s registered trademark should have been properly used in the Republic of Korea within three years prior to the date of the instant request for revocation ( June 28, 2016) with respect to the product at issue among the designated goods by the Plaintiff, who is the trademark right holder. However, the instant trial decision is inconsistent with this conclusion.