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 filing date and registration date/registration number 1) of the instant registered trademark (a evidence No. 1): The designated goods on February 7, 2007 / February 11, 2008 / 73678 / 2008 : 3) are as indicated in the separate sheet. B. The Defendant filed a petition for revocation of the registration of the instant registered trademark on October 7, 2016 against the Plaintiff who is a trademark right holder of the instant registered trademark “” with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 7, 2016, and the instant registered trademark was not used in Korea for three consecutive years or more before the date a revocation request is filed by either the trademark right holder, exclusive licensee, or non-exclusive licensee without justifiable grounds. Accordingly, the registration must be revoked pursuant to Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act.

2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the above request for a trial on April 27, 2018, and used the registered trademark of this case for designated goods in Korea within three years before the date of the request for revocation trial.

Since the registered trademark of this case was not proven that there was a legitimate reason for not being used, the registration of this case should be revoked as it falls under Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act.

The judgment of this case citing the defendant's above appeal (A evidence 2) was made on the grounds of the judgment of this case.

2. The Plaintiff, a trademark right holder of the instant registered trademark, had used the mark within the scope recognized as identical to the instant registered trademark in Korea within three years before October 7, 2016, which is the date of the instant request for revocation trial. Thus, even though the instant registered trademark does not fall under Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act, it was unlawful that the instant registered trademark was judged differently.

3. Determination as to the illegality of the trial decision of this case

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s “Blust Social” products (hereinafter “the instant case”) around 2007 as follows.