1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumed factual basis

(a) Date of application of the registered design of this case (Evidence A 1 and 2)/registration date/registration number: C/D/E 2: F3) Description and drawings of the design: The owner of the design right: the Plaintiff;

B. Prior designs 1 and 2 are the subject design 1 and 2 submitted in the instant trial decision.

1) The filing date (No. 4, 5, 56)/ the filing date/registration date/registration number of a prior design 1 (A. 4, 56: G/H/I: a description of the design and drawings: JC design: as set out in Schedule 1. d. 1.) of the attached Table 2: Defendant 2) the owner of a design right: a description of the design and drawings of the prior design 2 (A. 7, 8)/ the filing date/registration date/registration number: K/L/M (N) design: D. 2.0: Co.,, Ltd.

C. On January 20, 2017, the Defendant filed for a registration invalidation trial on the instant registered design with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff, the owner of the registered design of the instant case. On September 20, 2017, the Defendant claimed that “The instant registered design falls under Article 33(1) of the Design Protection Act because it is similar to the prior design 1, and it is possible for a person with ordinary knowledge (hereinafter “ordinary designer”) to easily create the registered design by combining the design 1 and 2 in the field to which the design pertains, and the registration of the instant registered design should be invalidated by falling under Article 33(2) of the Design Protection Act.”

[Judgment of the court below]