1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) Date of the application of the registered design (A) 1)/ the date of registration/registration number: A product subject to the design on April 25, 2011//Sgd. 684141(2) on March 5, 2013: A description of the design, the essential point of the creation of the design, and drawings (attached Form 1 4): The owner of the design right: The Plaintiff;

B. 1) The comparative design 1 (No. 8) is a design related to the "protruding-out oil exhauster" inserted in Article 10-436827 of the Registered Patent Gazette publicly announced on June 23, 2004, and its drawings (attached Form 2-1); 2) the comparative design 2 (No. 4) of the Design Gazette publicly announced on August 19, 2003, as a design related to "protruding-out gas" listed in Article 30-29087 ( Similar No. 3) of the Registered Design Gazette publicly announced on August 19, 2003, and such drawings (attached Form 2-2) are as follows.

3) A design related to “gas protruding” inserted in Article 30-29087 of the Registration Design Gazette publicly announced on February 4, 2002, which is subject to comparison design 3 (No. 1). The drawings are as shown in attached Form 2-3. (c) The Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the registration with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on May 20, 2014 against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant filed for a trial against the Plaintiff on May 20, 2014, on the ground that “the registered design in the instant case is similar or easily created from comparison design 1 or 2, and thus falls under Article 5(1)3 and (2) of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2. On March 2, 2015, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant trial ruling that cited the Defendant’s request for a trial on the ground that “the instant registered design falls under Article 5(1)3 of the former Design Protection Act because it is similar to the comparative design 2, and its registration should be invalidated,” on the ground that “the instant registered design falls under Article 5(1)3 of the former Design Protection Act.”

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The registered design of this case and the comparative design 1, and 2 are naturally required in the field to which the registered design of this case belongs, or in the basic function of gas spacting.