1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

(a) 1) Date of application/registration date//registration number: A product subject to design D/ E/W (2) design: a description of the design in the block 3) and the main points and drawings of the creation: A design right-holder of the design right as shown in attached Form 1; the Plaintiffs;

B. The rest of the cited designs are the materials submitted by the Plaintiffs on the ground that “the common point between the registered design and the comparative design 1 and 4 falls under the already known form and shape” and are not the subject of specific preparation. As such, the statement is omitted.

1) The date of application 1(a) of the comparable design 1(A)/ the registration date / the publication date of registration / registration number: G/ H/I/B product subject to design: A description of the framework for support for the tea c) design, the features and drawings of the creation: Attached Form 2; d) the owner of a design right: Defendant 2) the design of the “bloppet for the tea bloppet” posted on the Internet homepage (K) March 6, 2015, posted on March 6, 2015.

C. 1) The Defendant asserted against the Plaintiffs that the registered design of this case was identical or similar to the comparable design 1 that was filed prior to the filing of the application, and that the registration should be invalidated under Article 46(1) of the Design Protection Act. The Defendant asserted only the grounds for invalidation as to the comparable design 1 at the trial stage, and further asserted the grounds for invalidation as to the comparable design 4 at the trial stage. 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the instant case as 2019No2338, May 25, 2020, and registered as a design similar to the comparable design 1 that was first filed, and thus, registered in violation of Article 46(1) of the Design Protection Act.