1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff’s registered design is the design right holder of the following registered design, and its form and shape are as shown below (attached Table 1).

(hereinafter referred to as “registered design of this case.” The name and articles subject to design of this case shall be written on the date of filing of the dominant set / the date of registration / the registration number: The description of the design of No. 30-72695 on April 25, 2014 / November 19, 2014: Plast and synthetic resin are materials;

2.This design is to put hot water in the titryer and put in a titryer, put in a container containing a titryr, titryr or titryr in inside titryer, and to make titted;

3.This design is of such structure as upper lids are closed and closed, and is of a closed structure in order to enhance internal ionability;

4.The reference also 1 is for decomposition of this design;

5. The reference map 2 is that the use condition of the line A-A of a plane plan and the main point of the creation of a design: The combination of the shape and shape of the “a set manufacturing machine” shall be the main point of the creation of the design, and the defendant shall be an enterprise producing kitchen supplies, etc., and the defendant shall be "the defendant's product less than the crypt manufacturing machine in the attached list."

(3) The Plaintiff’s design right to the instant registered design was infringed upon by the Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the instant design, by manufacturing and selling the Defendant’s product similar to the instant registered design, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks the prohibition of infringement and the disposal of the Defendant’s product.

The Defendant’s registered design of this case existed prior to the filing of the application. The registered design of this case is not new compared to the prior design, and thus, the scope of the right cannot be acknowledged.

The registered design of this case and the Defendant’s product are different in depth and are not similar to each other.