Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Representative Director 000

Co., Ltd. 000

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul

Representative Director 000

Patent Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff filed for a trial to invalidate the registration of the instant registered design under the Defendant’s (1) on the ground that it could be easily created from the comparative design under Article 5(2) of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 7289, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same) because the instant registered design under the Defendant’s (2) was published in a publication published in the Republic of Korea and widely known prior to the filing of the application, and the Plaintiff filed for a trial to invalidate the registration on the ground that the instant registered design falls under Article 5(2) of the former Design Act (amended by Act No. 7289, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same). In addition, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board cannot be deemed to be a form or pattern widely known in the Republic of Korea as the comparative design cannot be easily created,

B. The registered design of this case and the registered design of this case (A) design of this case: The filing date of the defendant (C) / the registration date: November 29, 2002 / The summary of the design design device of this case (d) September 4, 2003: The combination of the shape and shape of the "hick" as shown in attached Table 1, for the goods subject to the design.

(e) A description of the design: A description of the material is metal and synthetic resin, and (2) The registration number of the comparable design (A): The filing date and the registration date of the Plaintiff (C) : the design right-holder: the filing date and the registration date of the Plaintiff (C) : December 30, 1999; the summary of the design right-holder (D) on July 25, 200: for the product that is the object of the design, the combination of the shape and shape of the “road fence” as shown in the attached Table 2, which is a combination of the shape and shape of the “road fence” as shown in the attached Table 2. The material is a aluminium or refinite.

【Evidence: No dispute between the parties

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the trial decision

A. The plaintiff's assertion

비교대상디자인은 이 사건 등록디자인의 출원 전에 용인시 등 7개소 이상에 설치되고 원고의 2001년과 2002년 카탈로그, 경향하우징 가이드북 2002년호, 2000년 12월부터 2002년 12월까지의 월간 물가정보 및 2001년 1월부터 2002년 12월까지의 월간 물가자료에 각 게재되어 국내에 널리 알려진 디자인이고, 이 사건 등록디자인은 비교대상디 자인과 마찬가지로 나무 덤불 사이로 보이는 겹겹이 쌓인 능선에서 태양이나 달이 떠오르는 자연풍광의 서정적인 미감을 모티브로 하고 있으며, 비교대상디자인과는 세로 줄의 만곡의 정도가 완만한 점, 타원형이 아닌 반원형이 중앙이 아닌 좌측에 치우쳐 있는 점에서만 차이가 있어서, 비교대상디자인으로부터 용이하게 창작할 수 있다 .

B. Determination

Unlike the current Design Protection Act, Article 5(2) of the former Design Act, which applies in the instant case, provides that "no design shall be registered for a design (excluding a design falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1)) easily created by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design belongs by means of a shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof, widely known in the Republic of Korea, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)," shall be the comparative design for determining whether the shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof, which is widely known in the Republic of Korea, is creative use. Here, the shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof widely known in the Republic of Korea from 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 10 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 2 or more to 20 years to 20 years to 2.

Even if the comparative design is widely known in the Republic of Korea with respect to the fence, the registered design of this case has to be expressed by using or exclusively using the comparative design as it is, or if a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design belongs uses or diverts them, it is not only to have changed to the extent that anyone can use the design so that it can correspond to the design (see Supreme Court Decision 98Hu591 delivered on April 10, 201). In comparison with the registered design of this case, the registered design of this case forms one design using the two rectangular framework, while the registered design of this case forms one design using the two rectangular framework, namely, the basic design structure is different in terms of forming the registered design of this case using the two rectangular framework and forming the two two parallel shapes, namely, the two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the registered design of this case does not have any grounds for invalidation of registration falling under Article 5 (2) of the former Design Act, the trial decision of this case in this conclusion is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Park Jong-hee

Site of separate sheet

1. The registered design of this case;

Private Cities/Dos

Maximum face value per se

A person shall be appointed.

on the left-hand side map of the ship (the right-hand side map is replaced by another);

A person shall be appointed.

Ground plans;

-

Low face value map

2. Comparison design;

Private Cities/Dos

The upper-level map (the upper-level is identical to the upper-level map) the left-hand surface map (the same as the upper-side map).

A person shall be appointed.

Ground plans;

Low face value map

Also, reference 1 (A Doz. A - Maz.)

Reference also 2 (Resected Conditions at Speeds and Speeds of Standing Limits)

A person shall be appointed.