[1] The scope of the interested party who can request a trial to confirm the scope of a design right

[2] The case holding that in case where the defendant requested a trial to confirm the scope of a right to registered design, which is not within the scope of the right to registered design, as it purchased, manufactured, and distributed normally from the sales agency of the owner of the registered design right concerning "the air conditioners connecting wind tubes for air conditioners", the goods of the Speaker (A) for mobile air conditioners, cannot be deemed as an interested party against whom the owner of the registered design right opposes the right

[1] According to Article 69 of the Design Act, an interested person may request a trial to confirm the scope of a design right to confirm the scope of a registered design right. An interested person may request a trial to confirm the scope of a design right to confirm the scope of a design right. An interested person who can request a trial to confirm the scope of a design right with the content that a certain object does not fall under the scope of a design right refers to a person against the obligee, etc. who suffers or is likely to suffer damage to his/her business, and such interested person includes a person who engages in the business of manufacturing, selling, or using, the subject matter which is likely to cause a dispute as to whether it falls under the scope of a design right, or a person who, considering the nature of his/her business

[2] The case holding that in case where the defendant requested a trial to confirm the scope of a registered right to the effect that the goods of the Speaker (A) on the mobile air conditioner connections for air conditioners are purchased, manufactured and distributed normally from the sales agency of the owner of a registered design right on the “air conditioner connections for air conditioners” and do not fall under the scope of a registered right, the defendant cannot be deemed as an interested person against whom the owner of a registered design right has asserted the right

[1] Article 69 of the Design Act / [2] Article 69 of the Design Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3241 delivered on April 11, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 1192)

Heheptatech Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Tae-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Han Contraw Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Dai-ap, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 28, 2001 on the case No. 1612 shall be revoked;

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

[Reasons for Recognition] The entire purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 and arguments

A. The registered design of this case

(a) Registration number: No. 195763;

(2) Date of application/registration: February 17, 1996/ March 25, 1997

(iii)The summary of the design: the combination of the shape and shape of the air-conditioner connection tool for air-conditioners, as described in Appendix 1.

(iv)The description of the Speaker: 1. Raw resin 2. E. E. E. E. E. E. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H.R. H. H.R. H.R. H

B. Details of the instant trial decision

(1) The plaintiff is the owner of the design right of the registered design of this case. The defendant filed a petition for a trial to confirm the scope of the right to the design right of the registered design of this case, as it is identical to the registered design of this case and purchased and used at the sales agency of the plaintiff, as it is an object to be identical to the design of this case.

(2)The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal reviewed the instant case as 201Da1612, and rendered the instant decision that (a) the chairperson of the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal does not fall under the scope of the right to the registered design of this case on the grounds of paragraph (c) of December 28, 2001.

C. Summary of the reasoning for the instant trial decision

A person having a design right or a person having a legitimate right to produce or sell the article has properly sold it, and the design right for the article can not be asserted the right to the article. (a) The Speaker is the article itself that the defendant purchased in 'A' as an agent for the plaintiff's sale and expressed the registered design of this case. Therefore, the effect of the registered design of this case does not affect the design of this case. (a) The Speaker does not fall under the scope of the right to the registered design of this case.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Grounds for revocation of the trial decision asserted by the Plaintiff

(A) The Defendant’s petition for a trial is unlawful on the grounds that the goods themselves expressed the registered design of this case manufactured and distributed by the Plaintiff, and there is no benefit to the Defendant to seek confirmation of the scope of the right. Therefore, the instant trial decision that held on the merits is unlawful

B. Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant purchased the goods themselves expressed by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff and manufactured and sold air conditioners as parts. In the provisional injunction case against infringement of the design right, the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant, without accepting the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s act of purchasing and using the “air conditioners connecting the air conditioners” products produced and sold by the Plaintiff was not constituted infringement of the design right. Thus, the Defendant filed a judgment to confirm the scope of the right of this case as the Defendant did not have any other way to escape from the suspicion of infringement of the design right, and thus, the instant petition for a trial is lawful.

3. Determination

A. According to Article 69 of the Design Act, an interested person may request a trial to confirm the scope of a design right to confirm the scope of a design right. An interested person may request a trial to confirm the scope of a design right to confirm the scope of a design right. An interested person who can request a trial to confirm the scope of a design right that certain objects do not belong to the scope of a design right refers to a person against the obligee, etc., who suffers or is likely to suffer damage to his/her business, and such interested person includes a person who engages in the business of manufacturing, selling, or using, the subject matter which is likely to cause a dispute as to whether it falls under the scope of a design right, or a person who, given the nature of his/her business, may in the future

B. (A) The purport of the Defendant’s request for suspension of infringement of the design right and decision on provisional disposition prohibiting infringement of the design right (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2001Kahap1306) raised against the Defendant on May 11, 2001, is that (a) the Defendant’s request for adjudication is an infringement of the Plaintiff’s design right, and the Defendant’s request for suspension of infringement of the design right (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2001Kahap1306) is not an infringement of the Plaintiff’s design right, but an infringement of the Plaintiff’s design right against the Plaintiff’s design right (the Plaintiff’s purchase of the design right) under Article 98 (No. 985) since the Defendant’s motion for suspension of infringement of the design right (the Plaintiff’s purchase of the registered design right) was manufactured and sold under Article 300, PCH300, PCH300, 500).

4. Conclusion

Thus, although the above judgment of the defendant is illegal because there is no interest in confirmation of the scope of right, the trial decision of this case which judged on the merits without dismissing the defendant's request is unlawful, and the plaintiff's request is justified.

Judge Lee Jin-sung (Presiding Judge)