1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 26, 2019 on a case No. 2017Da3747 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration number 1) / Application Date / Registration Decision Date / Registration Date / Registration Date / Renewal Date: C/D/ 18/E/ March 26, 2014) old: The end of two categories of goods classified in Category 25.

B. The pre-use trademarks (service marks) are collectively referred to as "pre-use trademarks (service marks)" and when referring to individual pre-use trademarks, "pre-use trademarks" or "pre-use service marks" are referred to as follows:

The name of pre-use trademarks 1 pre-use trademarks 2 prior-use trademarks 2 prior-use trademarks 3 service marks 2 prior-use trademarks 2 prior-use trademarks 3 service marks , GF GH L L L M N registration date, the registration date of the renewal of the registration, the P QuR S 3-type sales agent business, the classification of goods and services 3-type goods sales agent business, the classification of goods and services 35-type goods sales agent business, the classification of goods and services 35-type goods sales agent business, the classification of goods and services 35-type sales agent business, the classification of goods and services 35-type sales agent business, the classification of goods and services 3-type sales agent business, the classification of goods and services 3-type sales agent business, the classification of goods and services 35-type sales agent business, the classification of goods and services 35-type sales agent business, the classification of goods and services 36-type sales agent business, the classification of new goods and services 35-type sales agent business, etc.

C. On April 3, 2002, the Seoul District Court Branch 2002Gahap2148 filed a lawsuit against U on April 3, 2002 against the Plaintiff, the previous owner of the trademark of this case, U, U.S., the owner of the trademark of this case, and U, U.S., the owner of the trademark of this case, were the wife of the Defendant. As the Plaintiff sold goods bearing the trademark “A”, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against U on the prohibition of the use of the trademark

U.S.