On November 20, 2015, the MOEA issued a ruling sustaining the TIPO’s decision that had dismissed a non-use cancellation petition against the trademark "優の生活大師 UdiLife and Design" in respect of the "online shopping; mail order; TV shopping" services in Class 35.  The MOEA indicated that in accordance with the consensus reached among the IP court, the TIPO and the MOEA in a meeting on trademark issues in 2012, submission of partial evidence concerning the use of the trademark for the designated goods/services would be sufficient to prove the use of the trademark in respect of other designated goods/services of the same nature, even if the trademark owner did not present evidence as to the latter.  Goods/services “of the same nature” refer to those goods/services categorized in the same sub-group of Class under the six-digit code classification as set forth in the TIPO’s Reference Book for Classification of Goods and Services.  In the instant case, the materials submitted by the trademark owner substantiated the use of the contested mark in respect of the service "online shopping" within the past three years before the filing date of the non-use cancellation petition, and this also supported the use of the mark in respect of the services "mail order; TV shopping", which are categorized in the same sub-group of Class as "online shopping".