1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs’ instant registered trademark, service mark (A evidence 2; hereinafter referred to as “instant registered trademark”) (1) filing date/registration date/registration date/registration number: C/D// service mark registration E (2) on March 12, 2015: (3) designated goods/service: [Attachment].

B. (1) On February 5, 2015, the Defendant filed a request for a trial to revoke trademark registration (Article 73(4) and 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) by asserting that “The registered trademark of this case shall be revoked pursuant to Article 73(4) and 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) against the Plaintiffs, on the grounds that “The registered trademark of this case shall be revoked by either the owner of the trademark right, exclusive licensee, or non-exclusive licensee.”

(2) On July 19, 2016, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling accepting the instant request for a trial (hereinafter “instant trial ruling”) on the ground that “the Defendant constitutes a legitimate interested party entitled to the instant request for a trial, and the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have properly used the instant registered trademark as designated goods subject to the revocation thereof within three years before the date of the request for a revocation trial, and the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds for not using the registered trademark.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The decision of this case, which judged differently from the plaintiffs' assertion, should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(1) Article 73 (6) of the former Trademark Act is applicable to the defendant.