1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) Date of the application of the registered design (No. 3) of this case / Date of registration / Number : B/ C/ design registration D2): E siren: vaga.

The registered design bulletin shall be indicated as “Trenchi” but shall be indicated as “Trenchi” in accordance with the external language marking method.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

3) Description and drawings of the design: (b) Description and drawings of the design (attached Form 1); (c) Description and drawings of the design (attached Form 2); as shown in attached Form 2; (c) Pre-Design 1) the drawings in the Utility Model Gazette for Registration; or in preparation for the registered design of this case.

(A) The date of application / the publication date of registration / the registration number: The name of the article on April 10, 2003// May 9, 2003: the name of the article on May 9, 2003/ the name of the article on May 18, 2003/ the name of the article on May 9, 2003: C: as shown in attached Form 3/ [Attachment 3](1). (2) On July 17, 2003, prior design 2(A evidence 5) (No. 5), prior design 2(E, which is installed in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City F, is as listed in paragraph (2) (attached Form 3).

3) On April 27, 2002, a prior design 3 (No. 2) was installed in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the actual photograph thereof (attached Form 3) is identical to paragraph (3). C) On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the challenged design belongs to the scope of the right of the registered design of this case, and filed a claim against the Defendant before the Intellectual Property Tribunal for an affirmative trial to confirm the scope of the right (2014DaDa2146). 2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on January 2, 2015, on the ground that “the registered design of this case does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered design of this case because the registered design of this case is similar to the prior design 1.”

2. Determination as to whether the instant trial decision is justifiable

A. The registered design of this case and the prior design 1 in comparison with the goods are “E”, respectively.