1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 21, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2016Da2830 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration number 1) / filing date / registration date : 3) Designated goods of Category 25 classified in the classification of goods: Golfization, simplification, agricultural franchisation, parts, sandbox, sandbox, sports products, Schlage, Schlage, straw, children's clothes, scamblings, scamblings, packs, packs, pcambs, packs, packs, packs, Paris, lebox, throcot, ambrate, Orcot, children's clothes, bruts, cambs, z, swets, shampts, knitts, knitts, knitts, Troves, scamblings, scamblings, scamblings, scamblings, laves, patts, grokes, blaves, glats, lats, plaintiffs, 4).

B. (1) On September 12, 2016, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board for revocation of the trademark registration against the Plaintiff, stating that “The instant registered trademark was not used in Korea for at least three consecutive years prior to the filing date of the petition for trial, and its registration must be revoked.” (2) As the Defendant’s duplicate of the petition for trial was not served on the Plaintiff, the duplicate was served on October 25, 2016, and the Plaintiff did not submit any written reply, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a decision on April 21, 2017 on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not prove that there was justifiable reason to use the instant registered trademark in Korea within three years prior to the filing date of the petition for trial.”

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that 5 years prior to the date of the instant petition for a trial, the Plaintiff used the instant registered trademark in the form of 50 primary feees, etc.

Nevertheless, the trial decision of this case, which is judged differently, should be revoked as it is illegal.

B. Determination 1 of Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act shall be made.