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: (a) designated service business: Game center business, entertainment facility supply business, recreation facility business, recreation facility business, electronic amusement room business, children’s play room business, play room operation business (services for play with the complete payment) as provided for in Chapter 41 classified by the service business; (b) toy rental business; (c) toy lending business; (d) toy lending business; (d) book lending business; (e.g., sports facility business, kindergarten operation information business, educational guidance business, sports facility operation business, sports facility operation business, recreation facility operation business; (e.g., to provide services for play with the complete payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the full payment for the expenses);

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 Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal asserted to the purport that the instant registered service mark was subject to a trial seeking revocation of registration. (2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the said trial request as the case of 2014Da3047 and deliberated on March 24, 2016, based on evidence, such as photographs of the former part submitted by the Defendant, details of transactions related thereto, and details of remittance of banks, etc., the registered service mark of this case was properly used for its designated service business in Korea around September 30, 2013, where the registered service mark of this case was within three years before the date of the instant request for revocation.