logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2019.01.29 2017고정658
디자인보호법위반
Text

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

Reasons

1. No person prosecuted shall produce, transfer, lend, export, or import any product used exclusively for the production of a product to which a registered design or any similar design is applied as business or make an offer to assign or rent such product for business purposes;

A. Defendant C is a person who operates an original purchase agency business with the trade name of Defendant D.

On May 2016, the Defendant received a request from the Daegu Seo-gu Office to request the injured party F to import the original design of the design similar to the directly-owned design (G) design under the Design Protection Act through the Korean Intellectual Property Office. After importing the said original body in China, the Defendant infringed the injured party’s design right by selling 320 meters to the Defendant B and 160 meters to the Defendant A.

B. Defendant B is a person who runs a wholesale business for the first time with the trade name “I” in Daegu-gu H.

On May 4, 2016, the Defendant imported a design similar to a design registered by the Victim F in China via C, and sold and distributed approximately KRW 100 meters from June 4, 2016 to September 17, 2016, thereby infringing the Victim’s design right.

C. Defendant A is a person who runs a wholesale business for the first time with the trade name “K” in the Seogu-gu, Daegu-gu.

On May 2016, the Defendant imported a design similar to a design registered by the Victim F in China through C, and infringed the victim’s design right by importing it through C.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s assertion around May 2016, and Defendant A’s assertion on August 2016: (a) examined the original group of the design similar to the victim’s registered design (hereinafter “instant similar group”), and (b) discovered the original group of the design similar to the victim’s registered design that was displayed in a large number of stores; and (c) requested Defendant C to purchase the design by proxy.

Defendant

C imports of the above parts from Defendant B and A.

arrow