1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 30, 2015 on a case No. 2015Da3191 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) The name of the product subject to comparison (No. 3) 1/registration number 1/ the date of application : F 3: Map 1: B. Prior design 1 (No. 4) A: The name of the product subject to comparison (No. 20-207042/ the date of public announcement: Oct. 5, 200 : No. 15: No. 20: No. 31: No. 20: No. 20-8364/64/60: No. 20: No. 30: No. 20: No. 1. 20: No. 1. 45: the date of public announcement; No. 201: No. 3. 1. 25: the date of public announcement; No. 201: No. 3. 201:00/6. 26. 208) of the previous design: The name of the design subject to comparison (No. 5). 3. :

2. The Patent Tribunal’s registered design in the instant case on December 30, 2015 differs from the overall aesthetic sense with the comparative design 1 through 3 publicly notified prior to the filing of the application. The comparative design 1 through 3 or the comparative design 1 through 3 can not be easily created by combining the comparative design 4 through 8. Thus, the former Design Protection Act was amended on May 28, 2013.