1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The registration number of the instant registered trademark/service mark (Evidence No. 1 and 3) / the filing date / the filing date/ the renewal registration date: The registered trademark/service mark registration C/D/E// service business - Category No. 09 classified into product types: Protective wild boars, light-slocks for work, 35 classified into service business category : Health boar sales agent, health style sales brokerage business, physical landscape sales agent business, physical landscape sales brokerage business, water cover sales agent business, veterinary clothes sales agent business, veterinary clothes sales agent business, and import and export agent business

B. On August 2, 2018, the Defendant filed a petition for revocation of trademark registration seeking revocation of trademark registration on the ground that the Plaintiff, a trademark right holder of the instant registered trademark/service mark, was not used for the designated goods service business of the instant registered trademark/service mark, as the Intellectual Property Tribunal 2018Da2454 (hereinafter “designated service business subject to revocation of the instant case”).

(2) Article 119(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 11113, Dec. 2, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that “The Patent Tribunal shall apply Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 11113, Dec. 2, 2011; hereinafter the same) on September 16, 2019, the designated service business subject to cancellation of the instant registered service mark is F on the date of filing of the instant registered service mark under Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act.”

Therefore, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal's determination by applying Article 119 (1) 3 of the Trademark Act in this case is erroneous, but Article 73 (1) 3 and (4) of the former Trademark Act and Article 119 (1) of the current Trademark Act.