1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s registered design (No. 1 and 8 No. 1) / Date of application / Date of registration: The name of the product B/C/D2 for design registration: E3: B: as shown in attached Table 1. B. The Defendant’s design subject to confirmation is “E,” and its drawings are as listed in attached Table 2.C. 1) On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, asserting that “the design subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right since it is similar to the registered design of this case,” and filed a motion to confirm the scope of the right (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da3201).

2) On December 26, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the said request on the grounds that “the design subject to confirmation is not similar to the registered design of the instant case, and it does not fall under the scope of the registered design right.” The purport of the entire pleadings is to include the number of numbers, and the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 9 (the number of pages is included) without any dispute.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The parts of the Plaintiff’s assertion (reasons for cancellation of a trial decision) that attracts people’s sight in two multilateral parties are the parts on which the central level is attached, while these parts are extremely similar, several differences are already publicly known, and there is no difference in the aesthetic value provided due to the characteristics of the material of the goods. As such, two designs are similar indunes, which are more common than the difference in two designs.

Therefore, since the design subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to the registered design of this case because it is similar to the registered design of this case, the trial decision of this case, which has different conclusions, should be revoked as unlawful.

B. In determining the same or similar design of the relevant legal doctrine, a person who can make preparations and observations as a whole, instead of partially separating each element constituting a design.