1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 17, 2019 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on a case No. 2018 Won368 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s filing date of the instant design (Evidence 1)/ the application number: B/C2: The main contents and drawings of the design in D3 are as shown in attached Form 1. B. Prior designs 1 (Evidence 13) of prior designs (Evidence 13 of A) published on June 8, 2016 and published on June 8, 2016, are the main contents and drawings of the prior designs (attached Form 2).

2) On June 30, 2015, prior design 2 (No. 1) published on prior design 2 (No. 1), published on June 30, 2015, the main contents and drawings of the design “bruth brush” are as shown in attached Table 3. C. On November 7, 2017, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office issued a notice to the effect that the design cannot be registered pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Design Protection Act (Evidence No. 2) on the ground that the prior design was simply combined with the part of the bruth brus of the prior design 1.

2) On February 5, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted the opinion of the person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design pertains (hereinafter “ordinary designer”) pursuant to the notification of the grounds for rejection, etc. to the effect that the design is not a design that can be derived by simply combining the prior design 1 and 2, but a design that is not a design that can be derived from the combination. However, on March 15, 2018, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office issued a decision to refuse the application of this case (Evidence 3) on the ground that “it is possible to reverse the grounds for rejection as of November 7, 2017, even if the design was reviewed in accordance with the Plaintiff’s opinion, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office did not discover the grounds for rejection as of April 9, 2018,” but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office presented the opinion of the Plaintiff (Evidence 8) and the grounds for rejection as of May 9, 2018.