1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) 1) Date of application/registration date//registration number: A product subject to a design C/D/ E (2): F3) description of the design, and the features, points, and drawings of the creation: The defendant;

(b) 1) Date of application / Date of registration / Date of publication/registration / Number of designs: G/H/I/J2: H 3) Description of the design, points of creation, and drawings: The owner of the design right: L;

C. On January 29, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant for a trial to invalidate the registration of a registered design (No. 2019Da375), and the registered design is similar to the prior design publicly notified prior to the filing of the application, and is deemed to have ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design pertains (hereinafter “ordinary designer”).

(2) On December 2, 2019, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the ground that the registered design differs from the prior design, and that the ordinary designer does not constitute a design that could be easily created from the prior design, and thus, falls under Article 33(1)3 and (2) of the Design Protection Act. (2) The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for a trial (hereinafter “instant trial ruling”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the illegality of the trial decision of this case

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim and the prior design are common features of the dominant nature, while the difference between the steel parts in the rectangular shape and the slope surface is limited to the slope surface of the rectangular shape, and thus, it is ordinarily possible for a designer to create the design easily from prior design, and the design registration should be invalidated as it falls under Article 33(2) of the Design Protection Act.

Nevertheless, the decision of this case has different conclusions.