1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The Defendant’s registered service mark (A. 2 No. 1)/registration date/registration number: C/D/E2) previous service business: The designated service business: (a) the game center service business in Category 41 of the service business; (b) the business of providing recreation facilities; (c) the business of providing recreation facilities; (d) the business of providing recreation facilities; (c) the business of operating recreation facilities; (d) the business of operating children’s play grounds; (d) the business of operating recreation facilities; and (e) the business of operating recreation facilities; (e) the business of operating recreation facilities; (e) the business of operating recreation facilities; (e) the business of operating recreation facilities; (f) the business of operating recreation facilities (or the business of providing facilities with complete devices as much as the time paid for complete devices); (f) the business of operating recreation facilities with full devices; (f) the business of operating recreational facilities; (f) the business of operating recreation facilities; (f) the business of providing education information;

B. The process of the instant trial decision (Evidence 1) 1) against the Defendant, who is the holder of the instant registered service mark “” by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 27, 2014, and the instant registered service mark is not used for designated service business without justifiable grounds by any person among the holder of the instant registered service mark, exclusive or non-exclusive licensee in Korea for at least three consecutive years before the date on which the revocation request is made. As such, the registration should be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

The Patent Tribunal asserted to the purport that the instant registered service mark was duly used in the designated service business in Korea around September 30, 2013, where the instant registered service mark was within three years prior to the date of the instant request for revocation. (2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the said request for adjudication as the case, and based on the evidence, such as the photograph of the former part of the Defendant, the relevant transaction statement, and the details of bank transfers, etc. on March 24, 2016, the registered service mark of this case was duly used in the designated service business in Korea.