1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 21, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2016Da1700 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number of the instant registered design: The product subject to the design on November 7, 2014 (No. 782310 2)/ January 27, 2015: the description of the design, the main points of the creation, and drawings (a photograph for drawing): The design right-holder of the design right specified in attached Table 1: the Defendant;

(b) 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number of a prior design: A product subject to a design on November 4, 2014 (No. 82941 Item 2) design: A description of the design, the main points of creation, and drawings of the design: A design right-holder: the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff;

C. On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against the Defendant, asserting that the registered design of this case is similar to the prior design filed earlier, and that the design registration constitutes a violation of Article 46(1) of the Design Protection Act.

(2016No. 1700). On August 21, 2017, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the two designs are not similar.

[Ground of recognition] Nos. 1-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the propriety of the instant trial decision

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and key issues 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the design registration of the instant registered design is inconsistent with Article 46(1) of the Design Protection Act because the design registration is similar to the prior design for which the initial application was filed and its dominant characteristics, but the instant trial decision is inconsistent with this conclusion and thus unfair. 2) If at least two applications were filed on different dates for design registration as to the same or similar design, only the applicant who filed the initial application is entitled to design registration

(Article 46(1) of the Design Protection Act. The similarity between the registered design in the instant case and the prior design is an issue.

(B) The registered design of this case and the prior design are the same as cosmetics.

The criteria for determining designs.