Whether or not a person who has discontinued the business can become an interested party in a request for invalidation of a utility model

An interested person who can request a trial for invalidation of a utility model shall include a person who suffers or might suffer loss on business as of the time when he might have set up against the owner of the utility model right, and thus, he may be an interested person who has discontinued the business.

Article 25 (2) of the Utility Model Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Hu14 delivered on February 28, 1963 delivered on March 12, 1974

claimant

Patent Attorney Nam-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 78 J. 28 May 28, 1980 No. 180

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Point 1,

According to the facts established by the court below, the claimant, as a manufacturer of high voltages, closed his business from February 28, 1978, which is pending in the judgment of this case.

On the other hand, an interested person who can file a petition for trial on invalidation of a utility model shall be entitled to oppose the owner of the utility model right concerned, and therefore, he shall include a person who is likely to suffer occupational damage or to suffer subsequent damage (see Supreme Court Decisions 62Hu14, Feb. 28, 1963; 73Hu37, Mar. 12, 1974), and in filing a petition for trial on invalidation of the utility model in this case, barring any special circumstances, the facts of discontinuance of business alone cannot be interfered with as an interested person. Therefore, the original trial decision as a person who has a right to file a petition in the same purport is justified, and it cannot be said that there are any unlawful grounds, and thus, the argument is groundless.

Point 2,

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below held that the device of No. 47-34117, which was published in the publication published in Korea prior to the registration of the utility model (registration number omitted) of this case, was completely the same in the structure where the device of No. 47-34117, which was published in the publication published in Korea prior to the registration of the utility model (registration number omitted), was completely the same as the structure where the inner part of the P.O., inserted in the P.O., was sealed as synthetic resin. However, the former takes the external part of the P.V.C. to the P., and combined the external part of the P.O., while the latter forms the outer part of the P.O., the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, since it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jung-young (Presiding Justice)