The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 73(1)2 of the Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) provides that where an owner of a trademark right intentionally uses a trademark similar to the registered trademark on designated goods, or uses the registered trademark or a similar trademark on goods similar to the designated goods, thereby causing consumers to misunderstand the quality of goods or confuse with goods related to any business of another person, the trademark right holder may seek the revocation of the trademark registration.

The purpose of this is to promote safety in the transaction of goods by regulating a trademark right holder so that he/she may not unlawfully use his/her registered trademark beyond the scope of his/her right to use the trademark in violation of the original purpose of the trademark system, and to prevent the act of taking advantage of the credibility and reputation of another person's trademark, and to protect not only the interests of consumers, but also

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Hu1225 Decided June 16, 2005, etc.). In light of the language and purport of the above provision, even in cases where a trademark right holder who used multiple similar trademarks and registered only some of them continue to use unregistered trademarks, if, thereby, consumers are more likely to confuse the source of goods compared to the case where only a registered trademark is used in relation to another person’s trademark, such use may also be deemed as a use of a trademark similar to the registered trademark under the above provision.

In addition, in order to fall under the grounds for revocation of trademark registration as prescribed in the above provision, the registered trademark does not necessarily need to be similar to the other person's trademark subject to confusion.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

From July 2012, the Defendant has used the subject trademarks (hereinafter “,” “,” “,” “,” and “,” for clothing products, etc.

(b).