The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

가. 이 사건 등록상표 (1) 등록번호/ 출원일/ 등록일 : 상표등록 C/ D/ E (2) 구성 : (3) 지정상품 : 상품류 구분 제25류의 가죽신, 골프화, 낚시용화(靴), 등산화, 방한화, 반부츠, 부츠, 샌들, 스포츠화, 슬리퍼, 신발, 신발깔창, 신발용 갑피, 여성화, 우화, 운동화, 장화, 테니스화, 트레킹 부츠, 축구화

(b) On April 5, 2010, 2016. (3) Designated goods (before extinguishment): sportsization, household bamboo, rubber, rubber, high-tension, golfization, fishing paintings, thratization, thratization, thratization, thratization, thratization, thratization, thratization, thrheatization, thratization, thrheat, thratization, thrstrheat, thrheat, strheat, strheat, strat, strheat, strheat, skid, skid, skid, skid, skid, skid, skid, skid, rheat, rheatization, stratization, trifratization, stratization, rheatization, rheatization, rheatization, rheatization, etc.

C. (1) On April 15, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial against the Plaintiff for revocation of the comparable trademark under Article 73(1)3 and 8 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) on the grounds that the trademark subject to comparison had not been used in Korea for at least three consecutive years prior to the filing date of the request for the trial without justifiable grounds, and that the trademark subject to comparison is identical to the Defendant’s trademark “” widely known at home and abroad and may cause confusion among consumers. Thus, the comparative trademark should be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 and 8 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016).

(2) On January 14, 2016, the Intellectual Property Tribunal has an exclusive licensee of the comparable trademark.