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

(a) The Defendant’s registered design (No. 3) 1)/ the filing date/registration date: The name of a product C/D/E 2: F3: 4) design explanation and major drawings: as shown in attached Table 1.

B. 1) Prior Designs 1 (A) Chinese Design Registration Gazette (registration number / Application Date: CN 3035203 S// Publication Date: CN 303 July 17, 2015: 17/2015.2) Other drawings: 2) Prior Designs 1 (A) Chinese Patent Disclosure Gazette (No. 6 A) / Publication Date: CN 102 A/ 20952 A/ 2092 April 9, 2012: c) Other drawings or drawings: c) c) and c).

3) The registration number 3 (A) (No. 10)/ the filing date of the prior design 3 (A)/ the filing date: The name of the product: Conc. (d) and other drawings: Attached Form 2 (C). (c) On December 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial against the Defendant with the Intellectual Property Tribunal under the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2018Da4168, supra, and the registered design of this case should be invalidated by an expanded earlier application under Article 33(3) of the Design Protection Act, which is similar to part of the comparative design (hereinafter “instant prior application”).

2) On August 28, 2019, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “The instant registered design cannot be deemed a design similar to the comparable design, and thus does not constitute grounds for invalidation under Article 33(3) of the Design Protection Act,” etc. [The instant registered design cannot be deemed grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 3, 5, 6, and 10 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

2. The registered design of this case should be invalidated for the following reasons as to the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion.