1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 15, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on a case No. 2017 Party 6 shall be revoked.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

(a) Date of the Defendant’s registered trademark 1)/ date of registration/registration number: E/H/G 2: 3) Designated goods classified into the category of goods: Contact 21 category: Adjoining, scaming, scaming, server scam, locking, water leakage scambling, planting, eating, tableing, cambling, cambling, cambling, caming, caming, collection, portable types of food storage containers, scambling, scambling, salting, salting, food storage containers, food storage containers, Mobl, household appliances, self-processed products, self-stuffed foods, scambine, scambine, scambine, scambine, scam, scam for drinking, tambling, mark 4).

B. Composition 1: 2) Goods of actual use: Flag and Dog 3: User Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)

A person shall be appointed.

(c) In the composition of the subject trademark 1: 2) Products: Flag, Dog Self-3) User: A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”);

A person shall be appointed.

D. On January 2, 2017, the Plaintiff: (i) used the trademark in actual use by C, a trademark holder of the registered trademark, or an exclusive licensee; and (ii) was wholly amended by the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same applies) in relation to the subject trademark.

(2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on revocation of a trademark registration as to the registered trademark by asserting that the registration should be revoked as it falls under Article 73(1)2 and 8 (2) and (2) filed a request for a trial on revocation of trademark registration as to the trademark “(registration number D) composed of “” (registration number) by asserting the same grounds (No. 2017Da55), and (2) on March 15, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling No. 2017 party against the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the registered trademark on the ground that the subject trademark cannot be deemed to have been recognized as the trademark of a specific source (hereinafter “instant trial ruling”); and (2) on the same ground, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the trademark “” in English.

3. The plaintiff on April 2017.