1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) The Defendant’s registered design (No. 3, No. 44.1)/registration number / 1: No. 84362/37.32/ 2015: the name of the product for which the Defendant’s registered device No. 2, No. 46.2: 00/6.2 of the registered device No. 1: A (name of the prior design No. 6.2, No. 400/6.2 of the registered device No. 2, No. 164: 7.2 of the registered device No. 2, No. 40: A (name of the prior design No. 1, No. 64.2, No. 203: A (No. 24, May 24, 2015): the name of the product for which the Plaintiff is using the device No. 1, No. 94-1,000,000,000).

D. On April 24, 2017, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for an affirmative trial to confirm the scope of right (2017Da1294) by asserting that “the design for which verification is conducted by the Plaintiff is similar to the registered design of the instant case, and falls under the scope of the right.” 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 8, 2018, stating that “the registered design of this case is similar to the registered design of this case, and does not fall under the scope of the registered design of this case.”