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 (Evidence A2) 1)/registration date / service mark registration date / service mark / service mark / registration date prior to subdivision / divisional transfer date: August 6, 2009 / 10/ 214320/ August 14, 201: Designated service 3: Animal raising guidance business, animal raising technical guidance business, livestock farming technology map business, age club business, dicotex business, cooking map business, celebbbbling technical guidance business, event agency business, art gallery business, museum management business, museum management business, museum facility business.

B. On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) filed against the Defendant, the holder of the right to register the instant registered service mark with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 25, 2014; (b) the registered service mark “ of this case” had not been used in Korea for at least three consecutive years prior to the date of revocation request for the business of operating art galleries; (c) museum management; and (d) museum facility manufacturing industry. Therefore, the registration must be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act.

The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board filed a petition for revocation of the registration of the instant registered service mark, alleging that the instant registered service mark had been claimed. (2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board reviewed the instant petition for adjudication on November 23, 2015, and rendered a trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s petition for adjudication on the ground that the registered service mark does not fall under Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act from August 14, 201 to August 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was a non-exclusive licensee who had been granted implied approval for the use of the instant registered service mark from August 14, 2014 to the time when the instant registered service mark is divided and transferred; and (b) was a non-exclusive licensee who was granted the instant registered service mark from August 14, 2014 to August 25, 2014.

2. Determination as to the illegality of the trial decision of this case

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the Defendant divided the instant registered service mark on August 14, 2014.