If the technical scope of the device itself cannot be specified, whether the assertion of the scope of the right is made (negative)

Even though the scope of a request for utility model registration is based on the detailed description of the device or the description of other drawings, if part of the elements of the device cannot be specified as at the time of application for registration because it is abstract or unclear, the owner of the utility model right may not claim the scope of right within the registered device.

Articles 8 and 25 of the Utility Model Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Hu36 delivered on January 18, 1983, 83Hu106 delivered on March 26, 1985

Claimant, Attorneys Kim In-con and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Appellant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Tae-type et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 223 delivered on August 31, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even if the scope of a request for utility model registration is stated in the detailed description of the device or other drawings, if part of the elements of the device cannot be specified in the technical scope of the device itself because it is abstract or unclear at the time of application for registration, the owner of the utility model right shall not claim the scope of the right within the registered device (see Supreme Court Decision 82Hu36, Jan. 18, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 82Hu36

In this case, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the rubber Bande in this case becomes the j-type (a), and the j-type (b) is connected to the intersection by combining L, and each rubber Bande (1) is formed in annual installments, which makes several rubber Bande (1) continuously connected with each other, and its function is divided into rubber Bande (2) into rubber Bande, which makes it possible for many rubber Bande to continuously connect with each other. As such, it is more convenient to use the 3 mobile Bande as a means of theft, and it is more convenient and convenient to use it for various purposes, and as such, it is more convenient to use it as a 3 mobile Bande (1). As such, it is more convenient to use it as a means of larceny, it is more convenient to use it as a 1). As such, it is more convenient to use it as a 3 mobile Bande (1) that it is more convenient to use it as a means of systematic theft (1).

In light of the above facts established by the court below, the registered petition of this case constitutes a case where the technical scope of the registered petition itself cannot be specified because part of the elements are abstract or unclear, and thus, the (Ga) design does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered petition of this case.

The original adjudication decision to the above purport is just, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or omission of reasoning, omission of judgment, or misapprehension of legal principles. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)