2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. On November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant’s registered design in the instant case as indicated in B (B) is the same as the prior design 1 through 9 of the instant lawsuit, respectively. The Defendant’s registered design 1 through 9 of the instant design is identical to the prior design of the instant lawsuit.” The Plaintiff asserted that the design that can be easily created from the foregoing ought to be invalidated because it falls under Article 5(2) of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and filed a petition against the Defendant for a invalidation trial against the instant registered design under the Intellectual Property Tribunal 2016Da3507.

However, on March 10, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the registered design of this case does not fall under Article 5(2) of the former Design Protection Act, since a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design pertains (hereinafter “ordinary designer”) was not easily created from the comparative design, and thus, the said registered design of this case was dismissed.

B. The Defendant’s registration number of the registered design of this case (No. 3) / filing date/registration date: Articles subject to design on September 3, 2014// April 10, 2015: the description of the design of this case and the main drawings: (attached Form 1).

(c) 1) Prior Design 1 (No. 4) : Internet URL htp://www. Locks.com/gop =3780 & 378: Main drawings of Lanistton design: (Attachment 2; 2) Prior Design 2 (Evidence 5): Internet URL htps://www.amazon.curon.u/Curver-205848-Sorr-Sim-Sim-Sim-B080 of goods: the name of goods: the name of the main design of Lanistton 2(Attachment 2).

3) Prior designs 3 (Registration Number of the Category A design 6 / Date of application / Public Notice: the subject of the design on April 23, 2003/ June 26, 2004.