손해배상
1. Of the trial costs in the case No. 2397 of the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the remuneration for the patent attorney is paid.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells the industrial freezing, cooling, etc., and the Defendant filed an application for design registration for the Plaintiff’s representative director C’s partner C, and on March 10, 2005, filed for design registration for the rearing cutting machine, and registered the design as D E (hereinafter “instant registered design”).
B. From July 2007, the Plaintiff supplied the rearing slot and cooling-water F model (hereinafter “instant product”) to the e-mail managed by the New World Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Empt”).
C. On September 21, 2009, the Defendant sent a warning to the Plaintiff on September 28, 2009, stating that “The instant products and G, H, I, and J models supplied by the Plaintiff are deemed to have infringed on the registered design of this case. Accordingly, Emart shall completely suspend the sale of the instant products, and Emart shall have the Plaintiff and Emart posted a apology at the center of domestic daily newspapers, and shall compensate the Defendant for damages and file a criminal complaint, etc.”
On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a petition against the Defendant for a trial to nullify the invalidity of the registered design of this case with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. On May 5, 2011, the Plaintiff was granted a trial ruling on the effect that “The registered design of this case was exported to a foreign country prior to the filing of the application, and the registered design of this case was either known or publicly worked in the Republic of Korea prior to the filing of the application, and “the registered design of this case must be invalidated” (No. 2397).
In addition, on October 28, 2009, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff to confirm the scope of the registered design of this case with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, but was dismissed on May 5, 201 (No. 2009Da2576).
E. Meanwhile, on November 12, 2009, the Defendant filed a criminal charge of C, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, as violating the Design Protection Act, but was subject to a disposition on August 18, 201 that he was suspected of having committed a violation of the Design Protection Act.
[Reasons for Recognition] A. A., No. 1, 5, 6, 7, 18.