The subject of adjudication where a petition is filed for a trial to confirm that the device does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered design on the ground that the device is not the actual device.

Despite the fact that a claimant actually uses a sub-paragraph (b), even if he/she made a request for a trial against a sub-paragraph (a) device by manipulating the sub-paragraph (a) device to conceal it, the legitimacy of the claim may be at issue on the ground that he/she is not an interested party, such as there is no possibility of using the sub-paragraph (a), but even in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the subject of the

Article 25 of the Utility Model Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Hu48,49 Decided October 22, 1985

Attorney Seo Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Parkno-yang et al. and one other

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 87 Dated July 10, 1989

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the claimant's claim is legitimate on the ground that the (Ga) device is currently used as a consignment container for the manufacture and sale of the (Ga) invention and that the petitioner is demanded from the respondent who has the utility model right in this case to suspend its use in the future, and that the (Ga) device does not fall under the scope of the right to the design in this case (Ga) design in this case), even if the claimant actually used it for the purpose of concealing the (Ga) device despite the claimant's assertion, it can be an issue of whether the claim is legitimate on the ground that the claimant's claim is not an interested party, but an interested party, and even in this case, it is reasonable to view that the object of the trial falls under the scope of the right to the (Ga) design in this case, and that the decision of the court below is not justified on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is not justified on the ground that the (Ga) device in this case's patent right is not a legitimate one that is the object of the registration (Ga) invention in this case).

Therefore, each 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 Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)