1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on May 31, 2016 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s filing date/registration date/registration number of the instant registered trademark/service mark (hereinafter “instant registered trademark”) / The date of August 26, 2008 / The mark No. 30702 (2) of the trademark registration No. 30702 (2) of the trademark on March 19, 2010: (3) the designated goods/service: (attached Form 1).

B. (1) On May 6, 2015, the Defendant asserted that “The registered trademark of this case shall be revoked pursuant to Article 73(4) and 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) is not used in the Republic of Korea for three or more consecutive years on the designated goods/service business subject to revocation indicated in [Attachment 2] by any of the trademark right holders, exclusive or non-exclusive licensee, without justifiable grounds.”

(2) After examining the above request for a trial by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board as 2015Da3103, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant decision citing the above request by the Defendant on May 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The instant trial decision, which had different arguments and conclusions from the Plaintiff’s argument, should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(1) The cosmetic-related product of the instant registered trademark was used as being sold in the Republic of Korea within three years prior to the filing date of the instant revocation trial through the KO International Inc. (CEO International Inc.) granted by the Plaintiff the exclusive right to import and sell the cosmetic-related product of the instant registered trademark. Thus, the term “designated goods/service subject to revocation” indicated in the instant registered trademark [Attachment 2] is not subject to revocation under Article 73(4) and 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act.

(2) The defendant who is supplied with cosmetics attached with the instant registered trademark from the plaintiff shall select similar trademarks.