1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s design registration number (No. 2 and 3 evidence 1) / filing date / registration date: C/D/E2: F3: The name of the product is as specified in attached Table 1. B. Prior designs 1 through 4 are the same as those of the comparable design 1 through 4, respectively, submitted by the instant trial decision (the instant trial decision appears to be erroneous in the statement that the comparative design 3 was the design on the photograph of the product sold on April 2013).

(1) On October 16, 2009, the prior design 6 was newly submitted to the purport that the prior design is a design of the same form as that of the prior design 3 in the litigation procedure for revocation of a trial decision. (1) A prior design 1 (No. 7) prior design 1 (No. 7) prior design is related to “G” published on the Plaintiff’s 16 October 2009, and its drawings are as shown in attached Table 2.

2) On June 25, 2013, the prior design 2 (No. 8) published on the Plaintiff’s 19th page in 2013, “G” is a design related to “F” among H products that the Defendant had manufactured on April 2003, and its drawings are as shown in attached Table 2(C).

4) A design related to “J” published in the Patent Gazette on March 5, 2001, as the prior design 4 (No. 10 Evidence No. 10) published in the Patent Gazette on March 5, 2001, and its drawings are as shown in attached Table 2, 5) prior design 6 (No. 19 and No. 19-1, 2, 4) prior design 6 (No. 19-1, 19-1, 15) prior to May 2012, 200, “L” stores prior to December 2007 (No. 16 through 27, 19-2), “M” stores (No. 120-1, 135, 19-19-1, 120-2, 20-2, 2, and 35).

C. The defendant (Evidence A No. 1) 1 of the trial decision of this case against the plaintiff who is the owner of the registered design of this case in the Intellectual Property Tribunal, and Article 33 of the Design Protection Act is the same as or similar to the prior design 1 through 4.