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 1) registration number / the filing date of the application / the renewal/registration date of the trademark registration: Trademark B/C/D//2 of March 8, 2012: Ordinary design registration of Category 9; Pagle 3: Pagle 9; Pagle knobs; knbs; knbs; knbs; knbs; knbs; knbs; knbs; knbs; knbs; k

(b) Products using a trademark 1) Gu type: Magyeong, Magyeong, Magyeong, and Maglas;

(c) becomes the subject trademark that is subject to confusion with the subject trademark that is actually used.

1) Registration number/application date/registration date/Renewal/Renewal registration date: Trademark registration No. 59516/8/200 of July 8, 2003; / on November 16, 2004 / 16/2014; 3) used goods: The owner of the right to register, such as the frode of Category 3 in the classification of the goods, the frode, the pentum, the Shacop, the Shacop, the Shacop, the Shacop, the Shacop, the skinckincker, the froke, the shamper, the shamper, the shamper, the shamper, the spawn oil, the spactary, the spactary, and the

D. (1) On June 26, 2015, the Defendant used the trademark similar to the instant registered trademark on the designated goods by the non-exclusive licensee of the instant registered trademark to mislead or confuse consumers as to the origin of the Defendant’s goods using the instant registered trademark, and thus, the Defendant was wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same applies).

(2) On November 24, 2016, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board filed a petition for revocation of registration with the purport that the registration should be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1) Subparagraph 8 of the former Trademark Act (No. 2015Da3695). On November 24, 2016, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board claimed that “the non-exclusive licensee of the instant registered trademark may cause consumers to confuse with goods related to the Defendant’s business by using the trademark modified to the designated goods, such as the instant registered trademark, Ansan, and glass, etc., in relation to the subject trademark, and it is not recognized that the Plaintiff fulfilled his duty of due care as a trademark holder. Accordingly, the instant registered trademark is subject to Article