저작권 침해금지 등 청구의 소
1. The defendant shall not produce or sell the products listed in attached Form 1 List 1 by October 31, 2016.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation for the purpose of civil engineering and construction as well as the manufacture, processing, sale, and construction of the materials, which produces and sells the PVC floor materials. The Defendant also produces and sells the PVC floor materials as a corporation for the purpose of synthetic resin processing.
B. The Plaintiff produces and sells model name New Cheongro PVC floor material, New CM 2182, New Bluro -CM21351, natural pet-SL31131, geobnbbb-Z6081, geographical helila-Z8091, geographical helila-ZS8091, geographical helila-ZS8071 (hereinafter “Plaintiff products”), etc. The Defendant produces and sells each product listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter “Defendant products”) as a PVC floor material in the wooden pattern, and compared with the Defendant’s products to the wooden pattern corresponding thereto, the product is as compared with the product pictures of the annexed sheet 2.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 32-1 to 6, Evidence No. 33-1 to 6, Evidence No. 34-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion asserts the following grounds for claim selectively.
The plaintiff's product is not simply used as it is, but is produced to express the characteristics of the plaintiff's product through various work, such as selection of a pattern without the pattern, change in the ratio, correction of defects, and coordination of color. Thus, the plaintiff's product's originality is recognized in the pattern of tree
In addition, the reproduction possibility for industrial purposes and the separation possibility from the practical and functional elements of the product in question are also satisfied, so the pattern of tree finat of the plaintiff's products are protected as applied art works.
However, the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by reproducing the Plaintiff’s work without permission and selling the Defendants’ products.
Therefore, the plaintiff sought damages under Article 125 of the Copyright Act and Article 123 of the Copyright Act against the defendant.
(b).