1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 26, 2016 on the case No. 1878 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant’s registered design (No. 2) 1)/ the filing date/registration date of the application: A product subject to design registration No. 789723/23/26/2014, which is subject to design registration: A description of the design and major drawings (attached Form 1); (b) a description of the design and main drawings of the design (attached Form 1); (c) a description of the design subject to the Plaintiff’s registered design (attached Form 2); (c) a registration number (Evidence 8) / the filing date: A registration number 1); a product subject to design registration No. 73501/21/2018, 2012 (Article 73501/328/318, 2014): A product subject to a design: A product subject to infant’s molet drawings; and (d) a description of the design subject to design subject to design registration (attached Form 3) and a major drawing; 3: 3) a description of the design subject to an infant’s design.

1) On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a motion to confirm the scope of the right of the registered design of this case against the Defendant on June 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant petition for trial”) seeking confirmation against the Intellectual Property Tribunal that “the design subject to confirmation is not similar to the registered design of this case and does not fall under the scope of the registered design of this case” (hereinafter “instant petition for trial”).

(2) On December 26, 2016, the Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s instant petition for a trial on the ground that “the design subject to confirmation is identical or similar to the overall appearance of the registered design of this case, and the design subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to the registered design of this case, as it is related to the use of the registered design of this case.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the grounds for revocation of the trial decision asserted by the Plaintiff

A. The registered design of this case is identical or similar to the prior design publicly announced before the filing of the application, and the scope of the right cannot be recognized. Thus, the registered design of this case does not fall under the scope of the registered design of this case.

B. The challenged design is not similar to the registered design of this case.