1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The Plaintiff’s registered trademark (Evidence 1) of this case 1) / the filing date / the registration date / the renewal date / the registration number : B/ C/D2 November 4, 2013: televers, leathers, straws, straws, protons, protons, protetons, proteton, proteton, proteton, proteton, proteton, proteton, etc. of the category of designated goods.

B. On December 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) filed against the Plaintiff on December 2, 2015; and (b) the registered trademark of this case was not used in the Republic of Korea by any of the trademark right holders, exclusive or non-exclusive licensee for the designated goods for at least three consecutive years prior to the filing date of the revocation trial without justifiable grounds; and (c) the registration thereof shall be revoked pursuant to Article 73(4) and (1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board filed a petition for a trial seeking the revocation of the registration of the instant registered trademark with the purport to the effect that “The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have properly used the instant registered trademark within three years prior to the filing date of the trial for revocation,” on December 8, 2016, which cited the Defendant’s request for the trial on the ground that “the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have properly used the instant registered trademark within three years prior to the filing date of the trial for revocation.”

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. As seen next to the plaintiff's argument and the first argument of the issues, the non-exclusive licensee of the registered trademark of this case used the marks within the same category as the registered trademark of this case as the distinguishing mark of the designated goods within three years prior to the date of the appeal, and thus, the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 73 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act, but the decision of this case is unlawful.

1. Non-exclusive licensee of the registered trademark of this case