The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Registration No. 1)/ Filing date/registration date of the instant registered service: C/D/E 2: 3) Designated service: The person entitled to a service slip: the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff: the Plaintiff: the restaurant chain business specializing in capital reduction of Category 43 of the service industry; the restaurant business specializing in capital reduction; the restaurant business specializing in capital reduction; the restaurant business specializing in capital reduction; the food cooking agency business (limited to the country of capital reduction; 4) the food cooking agency business (limited to the country of capital reduction).

B. On July 5, 2019, the Defendant filed a petition with the Plaintiff for the revocation of the registration under Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) on the ground that “The instant registration service schedule was not used for at least three consecutive years before the filing date of the petition for the trial,” the registration should be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act. The holder of the right to the instant registration service list and the person having ordinary right to use the instant registration service list may cause confusion about the source of goods and services related to the Defendant’s service list, and thus, the Plaintiff filed a petition for the revocation of the registration under Article 73(1)2 and 8 of the former Trademark Act (hereinafter “instant registration”).

2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on May 28, 2020 used by the Plaintiff within three years before the filing date of the instant petition for trial.

“A table 2 of the registered services recognized as actual use,” “A table 2 of the registered services of this case,” is omitted, and is within the category of identity of the registered services of this case.

As such, the registration of this case's service list should be revoked pursuant to Article 73 (1) 3 of the former Trademark Act.

The registration of this case is similar to the registration service table of this case as the ordinary user of the registration of this case.