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 trademark (a evidence 1) of this case / The filing date / the registration date / the renewal date / the registration number: B/ C/C/D2 July 2016: 3 designated goods: Wheel chairs, bicycles, bicycles, bicycle wheel chairs, bicycle wheeler for bicycles, bicycle wheeler for bicycles, bicycle riding pumps, bicycle riding pumps, bicycle riding pumps, bicycle riding pumps, bicycle presses, bicycle presses, bicycle presses, handbbs for bicycles, bicycle riding.

B. On March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff’s trial decision of this case (Evidence 1) against the Defendant, who is the trademark right holder of the instant registered trademark “” in the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The registered trademark of this case constitutes a case where a trademark right holder, an exclusive licensee, or a non-exclusive licensee, has not been used for designated goods in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years prior to the date of a request for revocation trial, and thus, the registration thereof should be revoked pursuant to Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”).

The instant registered trademark is asserted to the purport, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for a trial to revoke the registration of the instant registered trademark. (2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the said request for a trial as the case of 2015Da1057, and on June 20, 2016, the evidence submitted by the Defendant was found to have used the instant registered trademark in the Republic of Korea as designated goods, etc. around February 2015, where E, a non-exclusive licensee of the instant registered trademark, was within three years before the date of the instant request for revocation, and thus, the instant registered trademark does not fall under Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act. The instant trial decision was rendered to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for a trial

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. For the following reasons, the registered trademark " " of this case" is a trademark right holder, and E, a non-exclusive licensee, within three years prior to the date of the request for revocation of this case.