1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 15, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2016Da1991 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant’s registered design (Evidence 1) 1)/ the filing date/registration date: A product subject to design registration No. 841061//2 of Sept. 18, 2015, which is subject to design registration: a description of the design and major drawings (attached Form 1): (b) a description of the design and major drawings (attached Form 1). (i) A prior design (Evidence 18) / the filing date/registration date: a product subject to design registration No. 73501//81/21 August 21, 2012: a description of the design and major drawings of the design for young children (attached Form 2).

C. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant on July 8, 2016, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2016Da1991), stating that “The registered design of this case is a prior design that is the basis for the invalidation of the registered design 2, which is the comparison design submitted at the stage of the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board prior to the filing of the application, is a prior design that is the basis for the invalidation of the design, and other comparative designs are referred to as a design that is the basis for the development of the design. Inasmuch as the same is in violation of the provisions of the earlier application principle, the registration thereof shall be invalidated pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Design Protection Act. In addition, the registered design of this case constitutes a prior design of this case 2, the registered design of this case falls under the prior design of this case publicly notified before the filing of the application, and its registration shall be invalidated as it constitutes Article 33(1)3 of the Design Protection Act.”

(2) On February 15, 2017, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s instant request for a trial on the following grounds. Since the instant registered design was filed and registered as a whole, there is no room for application of the foregoing provision in relation to the relationship with the comparable design 1 applied as a partial design.

Therefore, the registered design of this case falls under Article 46 (1) of the Design Protection Act.