1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s registered service mark (a evidence 3) 1)/ the filing date of the instant registered service mark (a evidence 3) / the registration date / the renewal date/registration number: on June 7, 2000/ April 8, 2002/ on March 29/ 2012: 3 designated service business - the construction design business, the industrial design business, the indoor decoration design business, the fashion design business, the environmental research business, the hotel business, the news news news report service business, and the medical service business

B. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff on the Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 20, 2015; (b) the instant registered service mark is not used in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years prior to the filing date of the revocation trial; and (c) the registration of the instant registered service mark ought to 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 instant petition for adjudication on the revocation of service mark registration” was filed with the purport of the instant petition (hereinafter referred to as “instant petition for adjudication”).

(2) On August 1, 2016, the Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the instant registered service mark in the case of 2015Da4326, and rendered the instant trial decision citing the Defendant’s request for a trial on August 1, 2016, on the ground that “The instant registered service mark is not proven to have justifiable grounds for having used or not used the instant registered service mark for the designated service business subject to cancellation in Korea within three years prior to the date of the instant request for a trial.” As such, the instant registered service mark, among the registered service marks, should be revoked by falling under Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion.