beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) The Plaintiff’s application date of the registered design (No. 1)/registration date/registration number: the name of the goods D/E/Design F (2): the description and drawings of the design G (3) (attached Form 1):
(b) The name of the product subject to confirmation (the evidence No. 5-1 to 9 (1) of the product: H (2) description and drawings of the design: as shown in attached Form 2;
(c) Prior designs (1) 1 (No. 3, 6, and No. 4-1 to 8 (a) : The name of the article under (b) of the Internet portal site NAB B B B (the address: I and the date of publication: June 29, 2013: the name of the article under (c) : the drawing of the wire-type design (attached Form 3):
(2) Prior Design 2 (A) (No. 7) (a): A patent disclosure bulletin (USS 2010/9044 A1, disclosure date: April 15, 2010): The name of a good: A prote press map (C): d. [Attachment 4].
(1) On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for confirmation of the scope of active rights (2015Da5735) with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, asserting that “The design subject to confirmation is similar to the registered design of this case, or is related to the use of the registered design of this case at least, since it falls under the scope of the registered design of this case.”
(2) On August 22, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board held that “the registered design of this case is not subject to the scope of the right to the registered design of this case,” on the grounds that “the number and location of “kno,” i.e., the number and location of “kno,” “additional frame between the hand-on frame and the hand-on frame,” “the protruding pole and the hand-line between the hand-on frame and the hand-on frame,” and “the presence or absence of the hand-on frame, etc., are different from the registered design of this case.” The registered design of this case does not introduce the registered design of this case into its design as it is, as it does not fall under the scope of right to the registered design of this case.”