1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 26, 2012 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on a case No. 3268 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Date of application/registration date/registration number of the registered design of this case: Goods subject to design C/D/E 2: F No. 1-1-2 and F. 2 are indicated as Accenture A, but are corrected to Accental A in accordance with the correct marking method.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

3) Description of the design, the features and photographs of the creation of the design: The defendant; the design right-holder;

(b) The entry of the comparable design 1 (Registration Number of Design: J) that is not subject to specific comparison of the comparable design is omitted.

1) 2 (A) of the comparable design 2 (A) / Publication: A publication of the publication of the publication: FC design; the description of the design; the main points of the design creation; and drawings: attached Table 2; d) the design right-holder: Plaintiff 2); the Plaintiff 3 of the comparative design 3 claims that the design of the instant case can be easily created by combining the designs publicly notified in the preparatory document dated July 13, 2013 in the evidence No. 5-70, etc. of the comparative design 1 or 2; and the design publicly notified in the evidence No. 5-70 is the comparative design 3.

(B) Publication 70(A)/Public Notice Publication 5(5)(A): The owner of a design right: The design right: the “O” is the subject of the design “design” in a description of the comparable design not exceeding M/Korea’s registered design, and the description of the design: FC design; the subject of the design creation; and the subject of the design creation and drawings: (d) the subject of the design right:

C. On December 27, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration against the Defendant on December 27, 201, asserting that the instant registered design falls under Article 5(1)3 of the Design Protection Act in relation to comparative design 1. 2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board reviewed the instant case for trial as 201Da3268, and subsequently, on April 26, 2012, on the ground that the instant registered design does not fall under Article 5(1)3 of the Design Protection Act.