등록무효(디)
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) 1)/ the filing date of the application/registration date: The name of a product B/C/D2 for design registration: E3: drawings: 4) other drawings, a description of the design (attached Form 1):
(b) The prior design (Evidence 5) 1) registration number/ the filing date/registration date: The name of a product: Before 74234 Similar 1/1/2014, April 3, 2014: 3: 4) other drawings, the description of the design, and the main points of the creation of the design: [Attachment 2].
C. On July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration with the purport that “The registered design of this case is identical or similar to the comparable design 1 (hereinafter “the registered design of this case”), and falls under Article 33(1)3 of the Design Protection Act, as a design that can be easily created from the comparative design 1 and 2, and falls under Article 33(2) of the same Act.” On December 6, 2017, the Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for a trial to invalidate the registration of this case on the ground that “The registered design of this case is not similar to the comparative design 1, but can not be easily created by the combination of the comparative design 1 and 2, and it does not fall under the grounds for invalidation under Article 33(1) and (2) of the Design Protection Act.”
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the registered design of this case is similar to the prior design and thus constitutes grounds for invalidation under Article 33(1)3 of the Design Protection Act, and thus the registration should be invalidated. However, the instant trial decision erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of similarity of designs, thereby affecting the fact-finding on the common points of both designs, thereby evaluating the difference between the two designs.