beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s filing date and registration date/registration number 1) of the registered design of this case (A No. 3)/: The name of the product on Oct. 23, 2008 / January 11, 2010 (No. 550412): The name of the product: (b) the name of the product subject to verification is as shown in attached Form 1: (c) the description and drawings of the design (attached Form 2): (i) the description of the design for crypt 2). (iii) There is no evidence to prove that the prior design 2 has been published prior to the filing date of the registered design of this case, as seen earlier. (ii) The name of the product in Germany PERI Karogs for the product of this case: 3) drawings: (d) the drawings (attached Form 3) the name of the product for crypt 1:
On September 10, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial to confirm the scope of the right to the registered design of this case on the grounds that the challenged design differs from the registered design of this case. 2) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the said petition as 2015Da4519, and subsequently, on February 29, 2016, the challenged design does not fall under the scope of the registered design of this case, and rendered the instant trial ruling cited by the Defendant on the ground that the challenged design does not fall under the scope of the right to the registered design of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision
A. Although the design subject to confirmation of the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is similar to the registered design of this case and its overall aesthetic sense, it falls under the scope of the right to the registered design of this case, the trial decision of this case, which judged otherwise, should be revoked as it is unlawful.
B. Whether the prior design 2 was publicly announced prior to the filing date of the instant registered design, the Defendant completed the drawings around March 2007 (attached Form 3) and delivered them to the Plaintiff, etc.