1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 17, 2015 on the case No. 2013Da2689 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration number 1) / filing date / registration date / registration date / renewal date: 40-0426132// August 20, 1997; / February 22, 1998 / 27, 2009: 3 designated goods: Protective fences, automatic power distribution teams, optical batteries, remotely control machinery and appliances, vehicle communications machinery and appliances, portable telecommunications apparatus, digital-use heating apparatus, electronic guns, electronic computers, screen-based electronic application apparatus, etc.

B. On October 7, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the registration of the instant registered trademark should be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act (No. 2013Da2689) since the instant registered trademark was not used in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years without justifiable grounds against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the registered trademark of this case was not used in the Intellectual Property Tribunal for the designated goods.

On February 17, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling revoking the registration of the instant registered trademark by citing the Defendant’s request for a trial on the ground that “The fact that the instant registered trademark was used on the designated goods within three years before the date of the request for a trial is not recognized only on the basis of the name cards, carbags, contract documents, and transaction specifications submitted by the Plaintiff.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 24, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. 1) The defendant does not constitute an interested party entitled to request the revocation trial of the registered trademark of this case. 2) The defendant, a non-exclusive licensee of the registered trademark of this case, sold CCTV security devices, automatic power distribution teams, and protective armores with the registered trademark of this case, and used the registered trademark of this case in Korea within three years before the date of the request for the revocation trial of this case.

3. Therefore, the instant trial ruling revoking the registration of the instant registered trademark is unlawful.

B. The defendant.