1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 4, 2016 on the case No. 5249 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Registration number/registration date/registration date of the instant registered design: F3) Design description and drawings: F3; B) design description and drawings (attached Form 1); (c) design description and drawings (attached Form 2); (1) design description and drawings are as shown in attached Form 2. (1) Plaintiff against the Defendant on November 12, 2015 by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2015Da5249, “A design subject to confirmation cannot be deemed as a similar design because its overall aesthetic sense differs from the instant registered design. Even if a similar design was submitted, the Plaintiff did not submit the design as a prior design in the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiff. In the instant lawsuit against comparative design 2, the Plaintiff filed a claim for a confirmation of the scope of right to a registered design, asserting that it could be easily submitted from prior designs to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the scope of right to a registered design falls under the scope of right to a patent seeking confirmation.”

2) On March 4, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that “The challenged design does not constitute a free-working design that can be easily created from the comparative design 1 and the comparative design 2, and the challenged design and the instant registered design are similar to the overall aesthetic sense, and thus, the challenged design falls under the scope of the right to the registered design of this case.”

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 and the prior design 1 or 7 are composed of ① extremely similar shapes of hand-mades, ② connected parts with hand-mades and body body, and the small amount of width associated with hand-mades.