1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 10, 2018 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s registered design (Evidence A 2 and 3) / filing date/registration date: F3: The name of the product C/D/E 2: F3: B. The drawings are as shown in Appendix 1; (c) the number of prior designs 1(Evidence A)/registration date/registration date/registration date/public notice date: The Plaintiff asserted that prior designs 1(Evidence 4) were carried out by the Defendant, and that prior designs fall under the name of the product of this case and the patent application number/registration date/registration date/public notice date: the name of the product of this case on August 25, 2001/ Oct. 29, 201: 201: The Plaintiff asserted that prior designs fall under the scope of publication 1(Ga) and the scope of publication 2(Ga) of the registered design of this case and the patent application number 1(Ga) of this case and the patent application number 2(Ga) of this case were publicly known to the Intellectual Property Tribunal 1-581(Ga)/575(Ga).2).

(2) On December 10, 2018, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the said request on the ground that “the design subject to confirmation is not similar to the registered design of the instant case, and thus does not fall under the scope of the right to the registered design of the instant case.” The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries and images of Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence 1, and Eul’s evidence 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (the grounds for revocation of a trial decision) is similar to the registered design of this case, and thus, falls under the scope of the registered design of this case.

The trial decision of this case, which was otherwise determined, should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. In determining whether a design of the relevant legal doctrine is identical or similar, each element constituting a design shall be divided in part.