1. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal’s decision on a case No. 2016Da3748 on December 19, 2017 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) The registered service mark 1) registration number / filing date / registration date: C/D/E2: 3) designated service business: Japanese food restaurant business, Japanese food restaurant business, primary food restaurant business 43 classified by service business: the Plaintiff

B. On November 28, 2016, the Defendant asserted that the registration of the instant registered service mark should be revoked pursuant to Article 119(1)3 of the Trademark Act since the instant registered service mark was not used in the Republic of Korea by the Plaintiff, etc. for at least three consecutive years before the date of the request for revocation without justifiable grounds, and that the registration of the instant registered service mark should be revoked. (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the instant request for adjudication on the registration of the instant registered service mark as 2016Da3748, and decided on December 19, 2017, “the Plaintiff used the instant registered service mark within the same scope as “the instant registered service mark”, which is the designated service business, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the registered service mark was properly used for at least one of the designated services.” The instant request for adjudication was rendered upon the Defendant’s revocation of the registration.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

2. Determination as to the propriety of the instant trial decision

A. Whether the mark of the Plaintiff’s actual use in this case is identical to the registered service mark of this case) the main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is whether the mark of actual use in this case is identical to the registered service mark of this case, and the mark of actual use used by the Plaintiff’s member stores, non-exclusive licensee who obtained permission for the use of the registered service mark of this case from the Plaintiff’s assertion, constitutes a type of

B. The mark used by the defendant's franchisors of the plaintiff's assertion is the registered service mark of this case.