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 of the instant registered trademark (A2 No. 1) / the registration date / the renewal date / registration number: B/ C/D2: the former designated goods: B/C/D2: Provided, That the foregoing shall apply to the designated goods specified in [Attachment]. (b) The Defendant against the Plaintiff who is a trademark right holder of the instant registered trademark “” in the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 3, 2015, against the Intellectual Property Tribunal under Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”). Since the instant registered trademark has not been used in Korea for three or more consecutive years prior to the date of filing a request for revocation with respect to the relevant designated goods, its registration must be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033,

The instant registered trademark was asserted to the purport that the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a trial to revoke the registration of the instant registered trademark. 2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the said request for a trial in the case of 2015Da3407, and thereafter, on August 17, 2016, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) who is a non-exclusive licensee of the instant registered trademark on the non-exclusive licensee of the instant registered trademark (hereinafter “E”) was within three years before June 3, 2015, the date of the instant request for revocation.

8. It is confirmed that participating in an event held by the Gyeongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun by September 19 and used the same mark as “Titrts” in the designated goods of the instant registered trademark, and those marks as “Sitrts” and “Sitt” among the designated goods, but the said marks are not identical with the instant registered trademark.

In addition, the Plaintiff, a trademark right holder of the registered trademark of this case, properly used the registered trademark of this case to designated goods in Korea within three years before the date of the request for revocation.

failure to prove that there was a legitimate reason for failure to use.

Therefore, the registration of the instant registered trademark shall be revoked as it falls under Article 73 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act.

For reasons, this case's trial decision citing the defendant's above appeal was rendered.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. The plaintiff's assertion.