1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 12, 2015 on the case shall be revoked.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Date of application/registration date//registration number: B/C/D2: 3): Designated goods: The obligee of registration (attached Form 4): the Plaintiff;

B. On May 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant registered trademark, the Intellectual Property Tribunal; and (b) on the grounds that there was no use in relation to the designated goods by either the owner of the instant registered trademark, the exclusive licensee, or the non-exclusive licensee in Korea for at least three consecutive years before the date the revocation request is made; and (c) the registration should be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act

The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board filed a trial to revoke the trademark registration of the instant registered trademark by asserting that the trademark is identical to the instant registered trademark. (2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated the said trial on March 12, 2015, and rendered the instant trial decision cited by the Defendant on the grounds that the marks presented by the Plaintiff as evidence for the use of the instant registered trademark are “LOVINK,” “Lve Pink,” and “Lve Pink,” etc., and all of them are not a trademark that can be deemed identical to the instant registered trademark. In addition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff properly uses the instant registered trademark or is not a legitimate reason for the Plaintiff’s failure to use the registered trademark. Accordingly, the instant registered trademark cannot be exempt from the revocation of its registration pursuant to Article 73(1)3 and (4) of the Trademark Act. The instant trial decision cited by the Defendant on the grounds that

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the trademark right holder of the instant registered trademark “,” and the Plaintiff manufactured and sold the clothing products bearing the registered trademark of this case within three years before May 7, 2014, which is the date of the instant request for a trial.

In addition, E, a non-exclusive licensee of the instant registered trademark, is also supplied with clothing products with the instant registered trademark attached by the Plaintiff for the same period.