The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case involving revocation of registration due to non-use of the grounds of appeal on the designated goods under Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act, the designated goods shall be interpreted and determined in accordance with the common sense of the trading society on the basis of their function, use, materials, specific transaction circumstances, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu1905 Decided June 14, 2007). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, interpreted the term “skin’s cosmetics” as designated goods classified and registered as Class 3 as “skin’s cosmetics” as “wholly manufactured products.”

In light of the above legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of designated goods

2. According to Article 119(1)3 and (3) of the Trademark Act as to the grounds of appeal on the identity of goods using designated goods, a trademark right holder or an exclusive or non-exclusive licensee shall revoke the trademark registration by a trial if any of the trademark rights holder or non-exclusive licensee fails to use the registered trademark in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years before the date a request for revocation is filed without good

Here, the term "cases where a registered trademark has not been used for the designated goods" refers to cases where the registered trademark is not actually used for the designated goods themselves or goods that can be seen the same as the registered trademark in light of the common sense of the trading society, and it cannot be deemed that the registered trademark has been used for the designated goods only with

On the other hand, goods identical in the general view of the trading society should be determined objectively by comprehensively taking into account the quality, use, shape, method of use, distribution route, characteristics of the goods such as suppliers and consumers and the actual circumstances of the transaction.

Supreme Court Decision 208.5.29